Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 6 views

    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a court case summary from the United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. It affirms the judgment of the district court in the case of C. J. Oliver et al. v. Home Indemnity Company on the basis of the district court's Amended Memorandum and Order, which provided the reasoning and basis for the lower court's ruling. The appeals court adopts the district court's opinion as the rationale for its affirmation of the lower court's judgment in the case.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    This document is a court case summary from the United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. It affirms the judgment of the district court in the case of C. J. Oliver et al. v. Home Indemnity Company on the basis of the district court's Amended Memorandum and Order, which provided the reasoning and basis for the lower court's ruling. The appeals court adopts the district court's opinion as the rationale for its affirmation of the lower court's judgment in the case.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1973-12-04 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 487 F.2d 514 Docket: 73-1628

    Original Title

    C. J. Oliver v. Home Indemnity Company, Intervenor-Appellee. Monsanto Company, Defendant-Third Party v. A. A. Pruitt, Third Party v. Hydrocarbon Construction Company, Third Party, 487 F.2d 514, 3rd Cir. (1973)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is a court case summary from the United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. It affirms the judgment of the district court in the case of C. J. Oliver et al. v. Home Indemnity Company on the basis of the district court's Amended Memorandum and Order, which provided the reasoning and basis for the lower court's ruling. The appeals court adopts the district court's opinion as the rationale for its affirmation of the lower court's judgment in the case.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    6 views2 pages

    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a court case summary from the United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. It affirms the judgment of the district court in the case of C. J. Oliver et al. v. Home Indemnity Company on the basis of the district court's Amended Memorandum and Order, which provided the reasoning and basis for the lower court's ruling. The appeals court adopts the district court's opinion as the rationale for its affirmation of the lower court's judgment in the case.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    487 F.

    2d 514

    C. J. OLIVER et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees,


    v.
    HOME INDEMNITY COMPANY, Intervenor-Appellee.
    MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant-Third Party PlaintiffAppellant,
    v.
    A. A. PRUITT, Third Party Defendant-Appellee,
    v.
    HYDROCARBON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY et al.,
    Third Party Defendants.
    No. 73-1628.

    United States Court of Appeals,


    Fifth Circuit.
    Dec. 4, 1973.

    Alvin S. Elisor, Cleveland, Tex., for Oliver.


    David H. Burrow, Houston, Tex., for Oliver and Evans.
    Tom Alexander, Robert C. Floyd, Houston, Tex., for Bruit and Home
    Indemnity.
    Warner E. Brock, Houston, Tex., for Smith.
    Henry E. Dalehite, Jr., Galveston, Tex., for All-Fab.
    W. Bryant Russell, Houston, Tex., for Topaz.
    Donald R. Hallmark, Houston, Tex., for S.I.P.
    Before TUTTLE, DYER and MORGAN, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:

    The judgment is affirmed on the opinion of the District Court, entitled


    Amended Memorandum and Order, 56 F.R.D. 370.

    You might also like