Legal Opinion
Amoco Production Co. v. Hydroblast Corp.
District Court, N.D. Texas
Decided December 10, 1999No. 1:98-cv-00264PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
CUMMINGS, District Judge.
On this day, the Court considered De-fendanVThird-Party Plaintiff Hydroblast Corporation’s (“Hydroblast”) Motion for Partial Summary Judgment with Respect to Its Claim Against Third-Party Defendant, Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company, filed on March 26, 1999. On April 21, 1999, Third-Party Defendant Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company (“FFIC”) filed its Response. On May 10, 1999, Hydrob-last filed its Reply. 1 Having considered all of the relevant arguments and evidence, the Court is of the opinion that Hydrob-last’s Motion for Partial Summary…
2Cases cited16 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
- Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Duncan v. Cessna Aircraft Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1984
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- United National Insurance v. Hydro Tank, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2007
- Zermeno v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.District Court, S.D. Texas · 2003
- Estate of Hill v. Allstate InsuranceDistrict Court, D. Colorado · 2004
- United National Insurance v. Hydro Tank, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2008
- United Nat. Ins. Co. v. Hydro Tank, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2007