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
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)