§Why CasetextPricing

Cypress Insurance Company v. SK Hynix America, Inc.

MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment For Breach of Contract & Dismissal of Defendant's Thirteenth Affirmative Defense

18 Cited authorities

  1. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett

    477 U.S. 317 (1986)   Cited 218,869 times   40 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"

  2. Berg v. Hudesman

    115 Wn. 2d 657 (Wash. 1990)   Cited 615 times
    Holding that extrinsic evidence is admissible as to the entire circumstances under which the contract was made, as an aid in ascertaining the parties' intent and adopting the Restatement (Second) of Contracts §§ 212 and 214(c)

  3. L.A. Printex Indus., Inc. v. Aeropostale, Inc.

    676 F.3d 841 (9th Cir. 2012)   Cited 233 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that while a floral pattern contains natural elements that are not protectible, "the original selection, coordination, and arrangement of such elements is protectible" and entitled to broad copyright protection and the substantial similarity test applies because there is a "wide range of expression for selecting, coordinating, and arranging floral elements in stylized fabric designs."

  4. Hexcel Corp. v. Ineos Polymers, Inc.

    681 F.3d 1055 (9th Cir. 2012)   Cited 155 times
    Holding that the district court may grant summary judgment "only if uncontroverted evidence 'irrefutably demonstrates'" that plaintiff failed to timely file a complaint

  5. United States v. Arango

    670 F.3d 988 (9th Cir. 2012)   Cited 140 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that mere physical presence "at the time the complaint was filed does not establish [a plaintiff's] residence there"

  6. Tanner Elec. v. Puget Sound

    128 Wn. 2d 656 (Wash. 1996)   Cited 174 times
    Stating that individual contractual provisions must be analyzed in light of their context within the entire agreement

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

    179 Wash. 2d 274 (Wash. 2013)   Cited 77 times
    Referencing Webster's Third New International Dictionary

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

    123 Wn. 2d 678 (Wash. 1994)   Cited 124 times
    Holding that undefined exclusionary terms are given their plain, ordinary, and popular meaning

  9. Wm. Dickson Co. v. Pierce County

    128 Wn. App. 488 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 49 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

  10. Hartford Ins. v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co.

    145 Wn. App. 765 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 42 times
    In Hartford Insurance Co. v. Ohio Casualty Insurance Co., 189 P.3d 195 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008), the court was confronted with a similar argument as proffered by Plaintiff in this case: if the property damage arose out of the ongoing operations of the subcontractor, the general contractor was covered under the AI endorsement even if the subcontractor had completed operations before the claim was asserted.

  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 333,232 times   158 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit