Legal Opinion
Snook v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance
District Court, D. Oregon
Decided August 7, 1963No. Civ. No. 62-502PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
KILKENNY, District Judge.
Plaintiff, a landscape gardener, was employed as such by one Ehlen, the insured, under the policy of insurance herein mentioned. On and prior to June 4,1960, plaintiff was employed within the course and scope of his employment and while so employed received a personal injury, for which he seeks recovery from defendant insurance company. On said date plaintiff was married, living with his wife and two minor children.
The policy of insurance on which plaintiff bases his action provided, among other things, as follows:
“Coverage A — Workmen’s Compensation
To pay promptly…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Gilkey v. Andrew Weir InsuranceCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1961
- American Mutual Liability Insurance v. DuesenbergIndiana Supreme Court · 1938
- Prudential Ins. Co. of America v. WinnCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1934
- Sindelar v. Liberty Mut. Ins.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1947
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Heine v. Bank of OswegoDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 2015
- Ross Dress for Less, Inc. v. Makarios-Oregon, LLCDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 2016
- Ross Dress for Less, Inc. v. Makarios-Oregon, LLCDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 2016
- Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. DennlerDistrict Court, D. Nevada · 1966
- Ross Dress For Less, Inc. v. Makarios-Oregon, LLCDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 2021
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.