Legal Opinion
Sapp v. Greif
District Court, D. Kansas
Decided March 13, 1997No. 96-2003-JWLPublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
LUNGSTRUM, District Judge.
I. Introduction.
This garnishment action comes before the court on the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment (Doe. # 68), the Garnishee’s motion for summary judgment (Doe. # 72), and the plaintiff’s motion for sanctions and to strike the Garnishee’s pleadings (Doc. # 86). 1 For the reasons discussed below, the court grants the Garnishee’s motion and denies the plaintiffs’ motions. 2
II.Facts 3
The following facts are uncontroverted. Sometime in late 1992 the Garnishee issued a Directors & Officers Insurance and Com pany Reimbursement Policy…
2Cases cited17 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
- Hall v. BellmonCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1991
- Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, in Its Corporate Capacity v. Gus S. Mijalis, and Gus S. MijalisCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1994
- Jones v. Unisys Corp.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1995
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Bragunier Masonry Contractors, Inc. v. Catholic University of AmericaCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2002
- Aselco, Inc. v. Hartford Insurance GroupCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 2001
- Crane Construction Co. v. Klaus MasonryDistrict Court, D. Kansas · 1999
- Holler v. Cinemark USA, Inc.District Court, D. Kansas · 2002
- Fletcher D. Sapp and Ruth Sapp v. Leopold H. Greif, National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Garnishee-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1998