Legal Opinion
Crossroads Partners v. Utah Crossing, Ltd., and Hale, Lane, Peek, Dennison and Howard
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided June 20, 1996No. 95-16304Unpublished
1Opinion of the Court
86 F.3d 1161
NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
CROSSROADS PARTNERS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UTAH CROSSING, LTD., Defendant,
and
Hale, Lane, Peek, Dennison and Howard, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 95-16304.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted April 10, 1996.
Decided May 17, 1996.
As Corrected June 20, 1996.
1
Before: BROWNING and NOONAN, Circuit Judges, and…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Bily v. Arthur Young & Co.California Supreme Court · 1992
- Goodman v. KennedyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
- Subhash C. MALHOTRA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COTTER & COMPANY, Defendant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1989
- Melvin Buckingham v. United States of America, United States Postal Service, and Anthony M. Frank, Postmaster GeneralCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1993
- Nevada Power Co. v. Monsanto Co.District Court, D. Nevada · 1995
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.