Matsuura v. Alsto & Bird
179 F.3d 1131
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 2, 1999
DocketNos. 97-16400, 97-17033
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases
This text of 179 F.3d 1131 (Matsuura v. Alsto & Bird) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Bluebook
Matsuura v. Alsto & Bird, 179 F.3d 1131 (9th Cir. 1999).
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
Related
Village Northridge Homeowners Ass'n v. State Farm and Cas. Co.
69 Cal. Rptr. 3d 551 (California Court of Appeal, 2007)
Living Designs, Inc. v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours and Co.
431 F.3d 353 (Ninth Circuit, 2005)
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
179 F.3d 1131, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matsuura-v-alsto-bird-ca9-1999.