Legal Opinion
Mandeville v. Onoda Cement Co.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided June 6, 2003No. Nos. 01-16912, 02-17045, 02-17049; D.C. No. CV-96-00668-RAMPublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM **
The Estate of Richard Mandeville appeals an order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant Onoda Cement Company. Mandeville also conditionally appeals the amount of the bill of costs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm in part and vacate and remand in part.
1. Breach of Contract
Mandeville first claims that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on count I for breach of contract. This claim lacks merit. The record contains no evidence of any contract, either directly between Onoda and Mandeville or between Onoda and Mandeville’s…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Balint v. Carson CityCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1999
- Ellis v. Precision Engine Rebuilders, Inc., Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)2002
- Pau v. Yosemite Park and Curry Company, McACourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1991
- Krause Inc. v. LittleNevada Supreme Court · 2001
- Outboard Marine Corp. v. SchupbachNevada Supreme Court · 1977
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- In re Myford Touch Consumer LitigationDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2014
- Claridge v. I-Flow CorporationDistrict Court, D. Nevada · 2019
- Whipple v. C R Bard IncorporatedDistrict Court, D. Nevada · 2024