Matsuura v. Alsto & Bird

179 F.3d 1131
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided February 2, 1999·No. Nos. 97-16400, 97-17033·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

The opinion filed February 2, 1999 [166 F.3d 1006], is modified as follows:

Section II, second paragraph, first and second sentences [166 F.3d at 1008]: delete first sentence and add the following footnote to end of the second sentence:

[FN] DuPont makes a bare assertion in a footnote that DiSabatino was wrongly decided, but devotes its argument to distinguishing the case.

The petition for rehearing en banc is denied. The request for certification and the motion for a stay of proceedings are denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Matsuura v. Alsto & Bird, 179 F.3d 1131 (9th Cir. 1999).

179 F.3d 1131 (Matsuura v. Alsto & Bird) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related