Cases

FORST, J. The pertinent issue before the Court is whether various statements made by the trial court judge and one of the parties below were improper and require a new trial. 1 For the reaso'ns given below, 'we answer in the affirmative and reverse the trial court’s denial -of Appellant State Farm’s motion for new tri

BARKER, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court on the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on both counts of the plaintiff’s complaint for declaratory judgment. Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”) issued an automobile insurance policy, No. 573 5718-C11-14A (“the Policy”) to Bobbie Jo Braswell prior to September 7, 1990. The Policy declarations listed as the

Mallett, J. (dissenting). Although I agree with the majority’s presentation of the facts and the issue in these cases, I find it necessary to dissent. Little more than one year ago, this Court, in Citizens Ins Co v Federated Mut Ins Co, 448 Mich 225; 531 NW2d 138 (1995), refused to reverse the Court of Appeals decision in State Farm Mut Automobile Ins Co v Snappy Car Rent

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT LUCY H. KOH, United States District Judge Vincent Marentes and Liudmila Bicheg-kueva (collectively “Plaintiffs”) bring the instant suit against State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Defendant”). Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, Partial Summary Judgment. ECF No. 39 (“Mot.”). Having considere

CHIEF JUSTICE McGRATH delivered the Opinion of the Court. ¶1 This case arose from civil litigation known as West v. State Farm, Cause DV-07-330, in the District Court of the Twenty-first Judicial District, Ravalli County. Tracey Morin, attorney at law, represented the West plaintiffs in that action. At the conclusion

404 Mich. 51 (1978) 272 N.W.2d 555 STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. SIVEY Docket No. 59774. Supreme Court of Michigan. Decided December 26, 1978. Draugelis, Ashton & Scully (by Richard T. Haynes) for plaintiff. Lizza & Mulcahy, P.C., for defendant Andary. PER CURIAM: The trial

104 Mich. App. 271 (1981) 304 N.W.2d 547 STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY v. DePREZ Docket No. 49627. Michigan Court of Appeals. Decided March 4, 1981. Draugelis, Ashton & Scully (by Richard T. Haynes), for plaintiff. Turner, Mead, Wilson & Turner, for defendant. Before: V.J. BRENNAN, P

Miller-Lerman, J. INTRODUCTION This is an appeal from the March 19,2003, order of the district court for Douglas County dismissing this declaratory judgment action. The action was brought by appellee and cross-appellant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm), against appellees Allstate Insurance Company (Allstate), H. Michael Harvey, and Gerald Campbell and appellant, Paul Steenson.

PARROTT, J. In these consolidated chancery causes complainants seek payment of unsatisfied judgments awarded against Benny Worley in an earlier suit for damages growing out of an automobile accident. The bills aver the car involved in the accident and driven by Worley was being operated with the consent, permission and knowledge of the owner, Sherman Lilly; that the automobile was insured under a policy of liab

231 Wis.2d 14 (1999) 604 N.W.2d 575 Ryan DEHNEL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Respondent, WEA INSURANCE CORPORATION, Defendant. No. 98-3187. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin. Submitted on briefs June 4, 1999. Decided September 30, 1999. *15

72 F.Supp.2d 1353 (1999) Chad HILL and Rhonda Hill, his wife, Plaintiffs, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. No. 99-1727-CIV-T-26C. United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division. November 1, 1999. *1354 James R. Hilbert, Jr., Carey & Hilbert, Clearwater, FL, for Maria Bajraktari, plaint

INTRODUCTION DURHAM, Justice: ¶ 1 On August 24,1989, plaintiffs Curtis B. and Inez Preece Campbell, sued State Farm *1141Mutual Automobile Insurance Company for damages arising from State Farm’s decision to try a third-party automobile accident case in which Mr. Campbell was the defendant, rather than accepting offers to settle for the policy l

719 S.E.2d 597 (2011) 312 Ga. App. 756 STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY et al. v. HERNANDEZ AUTO PAINTING AND BODY WORKS, INC. Hernandez Auto Painting and Body Works, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company et al. Nos. A11A0962, A11A0963. Court of Appeals of Georgia. November 21, 2011.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2020-IA-00332-SCT MISSISSIPPI FARM BUREAU CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY v. JEAN S. HARDIN DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/16/2020 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. MICHAEL H. WARD TRIAL COURT ATTORNEYS: A. MALCOLM N. MURPHY SAM S. THOMAS OWEN P. TERRY COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED

966 S.W.2d 776 (1998) Tammy KIM, Appellant, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. No. 05-96-00985-CV. Court of Appeals of Texas, Dallas. March 30, 1998. *777 John C. Sherwood, Corn, Sherwood & Associates, Dallas, for Appellant. Lori R. Thomas, Melinda R. Burke, Shannon Gracey Ratliff & Miller

| iWRIT GRANTED: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company filed a petition for pre-suit independent medical examination, which was granted by the district court. La. C.C.P. art. 1464 provides: “When the mental or physical condition of a party ... is in controversy, the court in which the action is pending may order the party to submit to a physical or mental examination.... The order may be made only on good cause shown....” Dis

In this case, we must decide whether the Texas Standard Personal Auto Policy obligates an insurer to compensate a policyholder for a vehicle's diminished market value when the car has been damaged but adequately repaired. We hold that it does not, and accordingly reverse the court of appeals' judgment. I Gary Schaefer purchased a standard automobile insurance policy1 from American Manufacturers Mutual Insuranc

PER CURIAM: * *886Plaintiffs-Appellants, who are policy holders of the various insurance company defendants, appeal following the district court’s grant of a motion to strike class action allegations and subsequent dismissal of Plaintiffs’ case. When the Plaintiffs declined the opportunity to refile their claims as individual actions, the d

The exhibits referred to in the opinion are as follows: "No. 375 Date June 10, 1953 Receipt is hereby acknowledged by: State Farm Auto Insurance Co. of $7.00 501 Seven no/100____________________ Dollars From Ralph J. Newell In payment of New Big Pontiac State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co. Mtg No P 8 W S 14925 Bloomington, Ill. By H. O. Kelly ___ Agent" No Protest <

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2023-CA-01225-SCT OLYMPIA WILLIAMS, MARY THOMAS, AND ALONZO JOHNSON v. MISSISSIPPI FARM BUREAU CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/15/2023 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. M. JAMES CHANEY, JR. TRIAL COURT ATTORNEYS: ROBERT G. GERMANY SAM STARNES THOMAS