Legal Opinion
Sparling v. Hoffman Construction Co.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided December 21, 1988No. Nos. 87-3931, 87-4436PublishedCited by 18 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BOOCHEVER, Circuit Judge:
Michael and Jean Sparling are the sole shareholders of Active Erectors & Installers, Inc. (Active). The Sparlings and Active appeal from the dismissal of their complaint. They contend that for various reasons Active’s claims should not have been dismissed; that the change of venue from Washington to Alaska was improper; that the complaint adequately alleged a claim for fraud; that the Sparlings’ claims were not derivative of Active’s; and that the award of attorney’s fees under Alaska law was improper. We affirm.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On December 6, 1984 the Sparlings…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Sedima, S. P. R. L. v. Imrex Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
- The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Van Dusen v. BarrackSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Shearson/American Express Inc. v. McMahonSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Simula, Inc. v. Autoliv, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1999
- Sparling v. Hoffman Construction Company, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1988
- Simula, Inc. v. Autoliv, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1999
- Hoffman Construction Company of Oregon, an Oregon Corporation v. Active Erectors and Installers, Inc., a Washington CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1992
- Mitek Systems, Inc. v. United Services Automobile AssociationCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2022
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.