Legal Opinion

U.S. for Use of Okonite Co. v. American Home Assur. Co.

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided September 20, 1993No. 92-15383Published

1Opinion of the Court

5 F.3d 544

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.

UNITED STATES of America, for the Use of the OKONITE CO., Plaintiff,

and

Okonite Co., Inc., Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee,

v.

AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant,

and

William M. Bennett, Bradley Sherman, Ernest J. Dronenburg,

Jr., and Matthew K. Fong, Defendants-Appellees,

Kingston Constructors, Inc.,…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. King v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1972
  3. C. R. Fedrick, Inc. v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1974
  4. A. S. Schulman Electric Co. v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1975
  5. Fischbach & Moore, Inc. v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1981

1 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