Legal Opinion
Heil Co. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.
District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
Decided June 20, 1996No. 95-C-154PublishedCited by 30 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
DECISION AND ORDER
WARREN, District Judge.
Before the Court are cross motions for summary judgment. For the following reasons, the Court holds that the defendants did not have a duty to defend the plaintiff in an earlier patent infringement action brought by a third-party. Therefore, the plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED, and the defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. 1
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND AND FINDINGS OF FACT
In this diversity action, the plaintiff, The Heil Co. (Heil), seeks to recover attorney fees and other defense costs incurred between 1990 and 1994 to…
2Cases cited37 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Bank of the West v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by30 opinions
- Thompson v. Maryland Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 2004
- Travelers Indemnity Co. v. United Food & Commercial Workers International UnionDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2001
- Ralph v. PipkinCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 2005
- Tradesoft Technologies, Inc. v. Franklin Mut. Ins. Co.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2000
- U.S. Test, Inc. v. NDE Environmental Corp.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1999
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.