Legal Opinion
In Re: Woodborough Development Company, Debtor. Bruce J. Cann v. Woodborough Development Company
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided September 15, 1997No. 96-15916Unpublished
1Opinion of the Court
124 F.3d 215
NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
In re: WOODBOROUGH DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, Debtor.
Bruce J. CANN, Appellant,
v.
WOODBOROUGH DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, Appellee.
No. 96-15916.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and submitted June 11, 1997.
Decided Sept. 15, 1997.
1
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, No.…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- April Enterprises, Inc. v. KTTVCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1983
- Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. v. East Bay Union of MacHinists, Local 1304California Court of Appeal · 1964
- STANFORD RANCH, INC., a California Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1996
- Surabhan Ratanasen v. State of California, Department of Health ServicesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1993
- Holtz v. United Plumbing & Heating Co.California Supreme Court · 1957
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.