Legal Opinion
Reynolds v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided November 17, 1967No. 67-Civ. 2083PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
CROAKE, District Judge.
These are motions under Rule 56, Fed. R.Civ.P. Plaintiffs, Catherine M. Reynolds and Alice M. Reynolds, seek a judgment declaring that the attorneys now responsible for their defense should be required to interpose counterclaims on their behalf. These attorneys and Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. (HARTFORD), which retained them, have cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the action.
The present difficulties arise from an accident involving the plaintiffs’ vehicle and a vehicle owned by Carl A. Haberstroh and being operated at the time by one Ralph…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Prashker v. United States Guarantee Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1956
- Switzer Bros., Inc. v. LocklinCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1953
- Keller v. KeklikianSupreme Court of Missouri · 1951
- General Casualty Co. of America v. FedoffDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1951
- Moore v. DealDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1962
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Shoshone First Bank v. Pacific Employers Insurance Co.Wyoming Supreme Court · 2000
- Mount Vernon Fire Insurance Co. v. VisionAid, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2017
- SER Tobby Lynn Small v. Hon. Russell M. Clawges, Jr.West Virginia Supreme Court · 2013
- Romish v. AlboDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1974
- In Re SmithUnited States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. California · 1985
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.