Legal Opinion
Burger v. Kuimelis
District Court, N.D. California
Decided June 28, 2004No. C-02-2309-VRWPublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
WALKER, District Judge.
I
The basic facts of this case are simple, although disputed. Counterdefendants were involved in purchasing insurance and insurance brokerage services from coun-terclaimants on behalf of a number of projects. Counterdefendants claim that they were secretly overcharged. Counterclaim-ants have a different story, namely that counterdefendants agreed to the extra charges and that counterdefendants used the extra charges to defraud HUD and the project owners.
As noted on a number of occasions, from these simple facts has grown a briar patch of litigation. Recently, the…
2Cases cited44 opinions
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Lopez v. SmithCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A.Supreme Court of the United States · 2002
- Hal Roach Studios, Inc., a Delaware Corporation v. Richard Feiner and Company, Inc., a New York CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1990
- Holmes v. Securities Investor Protection CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
39 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Fuller v. First Franklin Financial Corp.California Court of Appeal · 2013
- Walter v. Palisades Collection, LLCDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2007
- Nova Express v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2008
- United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Lee Investments LLCDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2008
- United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Lee Investments, LLCDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2008
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.