1993 Ninth Circuit US Court of Appeals Case Law

Opinions 1001 - 1500 of 4143

School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation, et al.; E.j.bartells Company, a Washington Corporation; A.p.green Refractories Company,defendants-appellees.school District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation, et al., Defendants,andfibreboard Corp., a Delaware Corporation As Successor Ininterest to the Paraffine Companies, Inc., Pabco Products,inc., Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation, Plant Rubber &asbestos Works and Plant Rubber & Asbestos Co.,defendants-appellees.school District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation; Armstrong Corkcompany, Inc., a Delaware Corporation; Atlasasbestos Company, Inc., a Canadiancorporation, et al., Defendants,andkeene Corporation, a New York Corporation Individually Andas Successor in Interest to the Baldwin Ehret Hillcompany, Defendant-appellee.school District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation; Armstrong Corkcompany, Inc., a Delaware Corporation; Atlasasbestos Company, Inc., a Canadiancorporation, et al., Defendants,andus Gypsum Company, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant-appellee.school District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation; Armstrong Corkcompany, Inc., a Delaware Corporation; Atlasasbestos Company, Inc., a Canadiancorporation, et al., Defendants,andowens-corning Fiberglass Corporation, Defendant-appellee.school District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation; Armstrong Corkcompany, Inc., a Delaware Corporation; Atlasasbestos Company, Inc., a Canadiancorporation, et al., Defendants,andflintkote Company, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant-appellee.school District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation; Atlas Asbestoscompany, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, et al., Defendants,andarmstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation,defendant-appellee
Date: September 24, 1993
Citation: 5 F.3d 1255
Louisiana-pacific Corporation; Port of Tacoma, Plaintiffs-appellees, v. Asarco Incorporated, Defendant-third-party Plaintiff-appellant, v. William Fjetland; B & L Trucking and Construction Co.,inc.; Industrial Mineral Products, Inc.; Murray Pacificcorporation; Portac, Inc.; Cascade Timber Company;executive Bark Inc.; Wasser & Winters Company; Eagletrucking, Inc., Third-party Defendants-appellees.louisiana-pacific Corporation, Plaintiff, v. Cascade Timber Company, Third-partydefendant-counter-claimant-appellant, v. Asarco Incorporated, Defendant-third-party Plaintiff-appellee, v. William Fjetland; B & L Trucking and Construction Co.,inc.; Industrial Mineral Products, Inc.; Murraypacific Corporation; Portac, Inc.,third-party Defendants.louisiana-pacific Corporation; Port of Tacoma, Plaintiffs,portac, Inc., Third-party Defendant-counter-claimant-appellant, v. Asarco Incorporated, Defendant-third-party Plaintiff-appellee,william Fjetland, et al., Third-party Defendants.louisiana-pacific Corporation; Plaintiff, v. Murray Pacific Corporation, Third-partydefendant-counter-claimant-appellant, v. Asarco Incorporated, Defendant-third-party Plaintiff-appellee,william Fjetland, et al., Third-party Defendants.louisiana-pacific Corporation; Port of Tacoma, Plaintiffs,wasser & Winters Company, Third-partydefendant-counter-claimant-appellant, v. Asarco Incorporated, Defendant-third-party Plaintiff-appellee,william Fjetland, et al., Third-party Defendants.louisiana-pacific Corporation, Plaintiff,andport of Tacoma, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Asarco Incorporated, Defendant-third-party Plaintiff-appellee
Date: September 23, 1993
Citation: 6 F.3d 1332
Ruth E Coker; Cathy Beets; Maria C Briesacher; Normacarideo; Maria Corral; Manuel Kantor; Chu Ly; Estermatthews; Jessie Minton; Roger J Norton; Paul a Palmira;james H Raso; Velma L Reed; Joseph Todaro; Cleo M Young;don Meza, Plaintiffs-appellants, v. Culinary Hotel and Motel Service Workers' Union, Local 226,of Las Vegas, Nevada, of the Hotel Employees and Restaurantemployees International Union of America, an Affiliate Ofthe American Federation of Labor, Cio; Hotel Employees Andrestaurant Employees International Union of America; Grichard; James Arnold; Donald Taylor Aka D Taylor; Black& White Corporations, I Through X Corporations; Able &baker Companies, I Through X Partnerships; John & Jane Doesi Through Xxx, Individuals, Defendants-appellees.ruth E Coker; Cathy Beets; Maria C Briesacher; Normacarideo; Maria Corral; Manuel Kantor; Chu Ly; Estermatthews; Jessie Minton; Roger J Norton; Paul a Palmira;james H Raso; Velma L Reed; Joseph Todaro; Cleo M Young;don Meza, Plaintiffs-appellee, v. Culinary Hotel and Motel Service Workers' Union, Local 226,of Las Vegas, Nevada, of the Hotel Employees and Restaurantemployees International Union of America, an Affiliate Ofthe American Federation of Labor, Cio; Hotel Employees Andrestaurant Employees International Union of America; Grichard; James Arnold; Donald Taylor Aka D Taylor; Black& White Corporations, I Through X Corporations; Able &baker Companies, I Through X Partnerships; John & Jane Doesi Through Xxx, Individuals, Defendants-appellant
Date: September 17, 1993
Citation: 8 F.3d 26
Unpublished Disposition
Date: September 15, 1993
Citation: 5 F.3d 536
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Date: September 10, 1993
Citation: 5 F.3d 537
Jerry N. Mixon, M.d., and Marilyn Mixon, Husband and Wife,plaintiffs-appellants, v. Franklin County, et al., Defendants,andeudean Gunnell, Individually and in His Capacity As Franklincounty Sheriff; Gary Schvaneveldt, Individually and in Hiscapacity As Franklin County Deputy Sheriff; Jim Jones,individually and in His Capacity As Idaho Attorney General;marc Haws, Individually and in His Capacity As Idaho Deputyattorney General; John Olmstead and Scott Birch,individually and in Their Capacities As Investigators Forthe Idaho Department of Law Enforcement; and the Idahodepartment of Law Enforcement, Defendants-appellees.jerry N. Mixon, M.d., and Marilyn Mixon, Husband and Wife,plaintiffs-appellants, v. Farmers Insurance Company of Idaho, an Idaho Corporation, Defendant,andtwi, Inc., an Idaho Corporation, and Robert G. Mangini, Anindividual, Defendants-appellees.jerry N. Mixon, M.d., and Marilyn Mixon, Husband and Wife,plaintiffs-appellees, v. Franklin County, et al., Defendants,andjim Jones, Individually and in His Capacity As Idahoattorney General; Marc Haws, Individually and in Hiscapacity As Idaho Deputy Attorney General; John Olmsteadand Scott Birch, Individually and in Their Capacities Asinvestigators for the Idaho Department of Law Enforcement;and the Idaho Department of Law Enforcement, Defendants-appellants.jerry N. Mixon, M.d., and Marilyn Mixon, Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs, v. Farmers Insurance Company of Idaho, an Idaho Corporation,twi, Inc., an Idaho Corporation, and Robert G.mangini, an Individual, Defendants.jerry N. Mixon, M.d., and Marilyn Mixon, Husband and Wife,plaintiffs-appellees, v. Franklin County, et al., Defendants,andeudean Gunnell, Individually and in His Official Capacity Asfranklin County Sheriff, Gary Schvaneveldt, Individually Andin His Official Capacity As Franklin County Deputy Sheriff,defendants-appellants.jerry N. Mixon, M.d., and Marilyn Mixon, Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs, v. Farmers Insurance Company of Idaho, an Idaho Corporation,twi, Inc., an Idaho Corporation, and Robert G.mangini, an Individual, Defendants
Date: September 3, 1993
Citation: 5 F.3d 538
Unpublished Disposition
Date: September 2, 1993
Citation: 5 F.3d 535
No. 91-70665
Date: September 1, 1993
Citation: 5 F.3d 535
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Date: August 31, 1993
Citation: 5 F.3d 541
United States v. Contreras-Matos
Date: August 30, 1993
Citation: 5 F.3d 541
Unpublished Disposition
Date: August 28, 1993
Citation: 888 F.2d 130
Unpublished Disposition
Date: August 28, 1993
Citation: 983 F.2d 1076

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.