§Why CasetextPricing

Cypress Insurance Company v. SK Hynix America, Inc.

RESPONSE

17 Cited authorities

  1. Bradley v. Pittsburgh Bd. of Educ

    913 F.2d 1064 (3d Cir. 1990)   Cited 451 times
    Holding that a district court may suasponte grant summary judgment only if it gives parties notice, so that the parties may "marshall [their] evidence to show that there is a genuine issue of material fact"

  2. Maljack Productions v. Goodtimes Home Video

    81 F.3d 881 (9th Cir. 1996)   Cited 216 times
    Finding an improper motivation where evidence demonstrated that plaintiff brought lawsuit in effort to expose defendant to risk and to secure competitive advantage in the market

  3. Int'l Marine Under Writers, of One Beacon Am. Ins. Co. v. Abcd Marine, LLC

    179 Wash. 2d 274 (Wash. 2013)   Cited 75 times
    Referencing Webster's Third New International Dictionary

  4. Lynott v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co.

    123 Wn. 2d 678 (Wash. 1994)   Cited 122 times
    Holding that undefined exclusionary terms are given their plain, ordinary, and popular meaning

  5. Wm. Dickson Co. v. Pierce County

    128 Wn. App. 488 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 47 times

    No. 31798-2-II. July 19, 2005. Douglas W. Hales, for appellant. Gerald A. Horne, Prosecuting Attorney, and Ronald L. Williams, Deputy, for respondent. HOUGHTON, J. ¶1 The Wm. Dickson Company (Dickson) appeals an order dismissing its breach of contract lawsuit, arguing that material facts precluded summary judgment. We agree and reverse and remand for further proceedings. FACTS ¶2 Pierce County (County) owns a gravel pit adjacent to Waller Road. Dickson is a construction company that owns a neighboring

  6. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.

    454 F. Supp. 2d 966 (C.D. Cal. 2006)   Cited 33 times
    Finding documents produced by party's business partners authentic where their interests were not adverse

  7. Syrovy v. Alpine Resources

    122 Wn. 2d 544 (Wash. 1993)   Cited 47 times
    Rejecting argument that agreement was an option contract supported by $1,000 `valuable consideration' where the contract `in clear and plain language, states that the $1,000 payment was for the earnest money"

  8. Grant Cnty. Port Dist. No. 9, Port of Ephrata v. Wash. Tire Corp.

    187 Wn. App. 222 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 9 times

    No. 31673–4–III. 04-21-2015 GRANT COUNTY PORT DISTRICT NO. 9, Port of Ephbata, Respondent, v. WASHINGTON TIRE CORPORATION, a Washington Corporation, Appellant, Chicago Title Company of Oregon, an Oregon corporation, Defendant. Christopher Robert Osborn, Foster Pepper PLLC, Seattle, WA, Neil Armstrong Dial, Eisenhower Carlson PLLC, Tacoma, WA, for Appellant. Katherine Lynn Kenison, Anna Christine Franz, Ephrata, WA, for Respondent. LAWRENCE–BERREY, J. Christopher Robert Osborn, Foster Pepper PLLC

  9. Daniels v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

    421 P.3d 996 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018)   Cited 2 times

    No. 75727-0-I 07-16-2018 Lazuri DANIELS, individually, and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Appellant, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent. Matthew James Ide, Ide Law Office, 7900 Se 28th St. Ste. 500, Mercer Island, WA, 98040-6004, for Appellant. Joseph D. Hampton, Kathryn Naegeli Boling, Betts, Patterson & Mines, P.S., 701 Pike St. Ste. 1400, Seattle, WA, 98101-3927, Frank Falzetta, Jennifer Hoffman, Shephard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLC, 333 South Hope Street

  10. Valve Corp. v. Sierra Entertainment Inc.

    431 F. Supp. 2d 1091 (W.D. Wash. 2004)   Cited 12 times

    No. C02-1683Z. December 14, 2004. Jason P. Holtman, Karl Justin Quackenbush, Preston Gates Ellis, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendants. Annette L. Hurst, Blake J. Lawit, Derrick H. Robinson, Jason M. Skaggs, Jeffrey T. Norberg, John E. Eichhorst, John D. O'Connor, Kimberly A. Bliss, Linda Q. Foy, Martin R. Glick, Sarah M. King, Simon J. Frankel, Howard Rice Nemerovski Canady Falk Rabkin, San Francisco, CA, Michael Ramsey Scott, Sarah A. Dunne, Hillis Clark Martin Peterson, Seattle

  11. Rule 801 - Definitions That Apply to This Article; Exclusions from Hearsay

    Fed. R. Evid. 801   Cited 19,064 times   75 Legal Analyses
    Holding that such a statement must merely be made by the party and offered against that party

  12. Rule 901 - Authenticating or Identifying Evidence

    Fed. R. Evid. 901   Cited 5,139 times   47 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[t]estimony that a matter is what it is claimed to be" is sufficient authentication

  13. Section 284-30-393 - Insurer must include an insured's deductible in its subrogation demands

    Wash. Admin. Code § 284-30-393   Cited 8 times   2 Legal Analyses

    The insurer must include the insured's deductible, if any, in its subrogation demands. Any recoveries must be allocated first to the insured for any deductible(s) incurred in the loss, less applicable comparable fault. Deductions for expenses must not be made from the deductible recovery unless an outside attorney is retained to collect the recovery. The deduction may then be made only as a pro rata share of the allocated loss adjustment expense. The insurer must keep its insured regularly informed