Legal Opinion
Vaughner v. Pulito
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Decided November 25, 1986No. 86-3285PublishedCited by 75 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ROBERT MADDEN HILL, Circuit Judge:
Defendant and third-party plaintiff F.J. Pulito appeals, complaining that the magistrate erroneously concluded that third-party defendant General Accident Insurance Company (General Accident) did not have a duty to defend him in a discrimination action brought by plaintiffs Charles Vaughner and Rebecca Hollister, and that the magistrate erroneously denied his request for attorney’s fees. The plaintiffs also appeal, claiming that the magistrate erroneously concluded that Pulito did not intentionally discriminate against them. Finding Pulito’s arguments…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Anderson v. City of Bessemer CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Lopez v. Aransas County Independent School DistrictCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1978
- Firefighters Local Union No. 1784 v. StottsSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- American Home Assurance Company v. CzarnieckiSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1969
- Christine Plemer v. Parsons-Gilbane, Etc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1983
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by75 opinions
- Keenan v. TejedaCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2002
- Rosado v. DetersCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1993
- Andre Grenier v. Cyanamid Plastics, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1995
- Jensen v. SnellingsCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1988
- USA Petroleum Company v. Atlantic Richfield CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1994
70 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.