Legal Opinion

Maddux v. Philadelphia Life Insurance

District Court, S.D. California

Decided December 1, 1999No. 3:98-cr-00472PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER GRANTING PHILADELPHIA LIFE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DENYING MOTION TO BIFURCATE AS MOOT; DENYING MOTION TO ISSUE RULE 54(B) CERTIFICATION

WHELAN, District Judge.

Defendant, counterclaimant and third party plaintiff Philadelphia Life Insurance Company (“Philadelphia Life”) moves for summary judgment, or alternatively partial summary judgment, pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs Robert Maddux, Dennis Maddux and Donald Maddux, (successors-in-interest to decedent Mary Manley Caine) (“Plaintiffs”) oppose. All parties are represented by counsel. This…

2Cases cited43 opinions

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  4. Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
  5. Gruenberg v. Aetna InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1973

38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Clark v. Allstate InsuranceDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2000
  2. Schwartz v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.California Court of Appeal · 2001
  3. Diaz v. Federal Express Corp.District Court, C.D. California · 2005
  4. James v. Dependency Legal GroupDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2015
  5. Daniel v. Del Valle (In re Del Valle)United States Bankruptcy Court, C.D. California · 2017

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API