Hanover Insurance v. Victor
393 U.S. 7, 89 S. Ct. 44, 21 L. Ed. 2d 8, 1968 U.S. LEXIS 569
Opinion
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Hanover Insurance v. Victor, 393 U.S. 7, 89 S. Ct. 44, 21 L. Ed. 2d 8, 1968 U.S. LEXIS 569 (1968).
393 U.S. 7 (Hanover Insurance v. Victor) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Barbara G. Holzsager, of the Estate of Donald M. Holzsager, Deceased, and Barbara G. Holzsager, Individually v. The Valley Hospital
646 F.2d 792 (Second Circuit, 1981)
Holzsager v. Valley Hospital
493 F. Supp. 120 (S.D. New York, 1980)
Savchuk v. Rush
272 N.W.2d 888 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1978)
Sykes v. Beal
392 F. Supp. 1089 (D. Connecticut, 1975)
Mahoney v. State Tax Commission
524 P.2d 187 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1974)
Turner v. Evers
31 Cal. App. 3d 11 (California Court of Appeal, 1973)
Turner v. Evers
31 Cal. App. Supp. 3d 11 (Appellate Division of the Superior Court of California, 1973)
Marie Minichiello, as of the Estate of Thomas Minichiello, and Marie Minichiello v. Oliver Rosenberg, Elwin W. Stevens, on Behalf of His Son, Dennis J. Stevens, an Infant Overfourteen Years of Age, and Elwin W. Stevens, Individually v. Stephen H. Tyng, Sr. And Stephen H. Tyng, Jr.
410 F.2d 106 (Second Circuit, 1969)
Varady v. Margolis
303 F. Supp. 23 (S.D. New York, 1968)
Minichiello v. Rosenberg
410 F.2d 106 (Second Circuit, 1968)