Cases
Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.
20 opinions for “Lacy v. Erie Insurance Company”
Erie Insurance Company v. Weiman Products LLCpublic domain
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ERIE INSURANCE COMPANY a/s/o : CONSTANCE DREW, : : Plaintiff, : Civil Action No.: 20-0917 (RC) : v. : Re Document Nos.: 18
Erie Insurance Group v. Hughespublic domain
393 S.E.2d 210 (1990) ERIE INSURANCE GROUP v. Nettie Jane HUGHES, et al. Record No. 891377. Supreme Court of Virginia. June 8, 1990. Jay T. Swett (Laura C. Rublee; Dayna B. Matthew, McGuire, Woods, Battle & Boothe, Charlottesville, on briefs), for appellant. L.B. Chandler, Jr. (Chandler, Franklin & O'Bryan, Charlottesville, on brief), for appellee Net
Lacy v. Statepublic domain
[Cite as Lacy v. State, 2020-Ohio-3089.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ASHTABULA COUNTY, OHIO JAVONTE LACY, : OPINION Plaintiff-Appellant, : CASE NO. 2019-A-0091 - vs - : STATE OF OHIO, et al.,
Lacy v. Statepublic domain
[Cite as Lacy v. State, 2019-Ohio-2973.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ASHTABULA COUNTY, OHIO JAVONTE LACY, : MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff-Appellant, : CASE NOS. 2019-A-0030 - vs - : 2019-A-
Louis Koerner, Jr. v. Vigilant Insurance Companypublic domain
EDITH BROWN CLEMENT, Circuit Judge: This case is about a roof. A perpetually leaky roof that Louis Koerner could never seem to get CMR Construction & Roofing LLC to fix. Koerner challenges the district court's decision setting aside CMR's default, its grant of summary judgment in CMR's favor, and its denial of his Rule 59(e) motions for reconsideration. These three challenges call u
Lacy v. Stinky Love, Inc. (In Re Lacy)public domain
304 B.R. 439 (2004) In re Nesbit Lee LACY, a/k/a Lee Lacy, Debtor. Nesbit Lee Lacy, Appellant, v. Stinky Love, Inc., Appellee. No. CIV.A.03-M-1681(MJW), Bankruptcy No. 00-23048-SBB. United States District Court, D. Colorado. January 21, 2004. *440 Lee M. Kutner, Kutner, Miller, Kearns, PC, Denver, CO, for Appellant. Gr
Berczek v. Erie Insurance Grouppublic domain
529 S.E.2d 89 (2000) John A. BERCZEK v. ERIE INSURANCE GROUP. Record No. 991117. Supreme Court of Virginia. April 21, 2000. *90 Morgan W. Campbell, Falls Church (R. Craig Jennings; Brandt, Jennings, Roberts, Davis & Snee, on brief), for appellant. Julia B. Judkins (Trichilo, Bancroft, McGavin, Horvath & Judkins, on
ACCEPTED 03-16-00203-CV 13816645 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS
02-10-399-CV
COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02-10-00399-CV CONTINENTAL CASUALTY APPELLANT INSURANCE COMPANY V. MARY M. LAVENDER APPELLEE ---------- FROM THE 158TH DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY
Amerisure Insurance v. Navigators Insurancepublic domain
611 F.3d 299 (2010) AMERISURE INSURANCE CO., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NAVIGATORS INSURANCE CO., Defendant-Appellee. No. 09-20060. United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. July 13, 2010. *302 David Morgan Pruessner (argued), Jes Alexander, Law Offices of David M. Pruessner, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant. Innes A.
Erie Ins. Exchange v. Shapiropublic domain
450 S.E.2d 144 (1994) ERIE INSURANCE EXCHANGE v. Steven SHAPIRO. Record No. 931803. Supreme Court of Virginia. November 4, 1994. Dana L. Scott, Jr., Fairfax (Anthony E. Grimaldi, Doherty, Sheridan & Grimaldi, on briefs), for appellant. Douglas R. Stevens, Washington, DC, for appellee. Present: CARRICO, C.J., COMPTON, STEPHENSON, WHITING, LACY and K
53 F.3d 1228 Vincent FIORETTI, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee,v.MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant. No. 93-5187. United States Court of Appeals,Eleventh Circuit. June 7, 1995. 1 Gerald Les
Episcopal Church v. Church Insurancepublic domain
*819 ORDER PATRICK MICHAEL DUFFY, District Judge. This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff The Episcopal Church in South Carolina’s (“Plaintiff’ or “TEC-SC”) Motion for Summary Judgment on Supplemental Complaint (“Second Motion for Summary Judgment”) (ECF No. 51). For the reasons that follow, the Court grants in part and denies in par
in Re Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.public domain
FILED IN st 1 COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TX 12/07/2015 CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE, NO. CLERK IN THE FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF TE
Lacy v. Whitepublic domain
288 N.E.2d 178 (1972) Richard A. LACY, Glenda M. Lacy, Appellants, v. Howard WHITE, Phyllis White, Appellees. No. 1-672A18. Court of Appeals of Indiana, First District. October 19, 1972. *179 James R. White, R. Clark Allen, New Castle, for appellants. Robert A. Harvey, George W. Hand, New Castle, for appellees. LOWD
STEWART, Circuit Judge: This ease requires us to determine the scope of Mississippi’s Uninsured Motorist Act (UM Act). Bradley Boatner went to Honduras on a humanitarian mission and was killed as he rode in the back of a flatbed truck. Both the owner and the driver of the truck were uninsured. Boatner’s parents sought payment from A
OPINION Opinion by Justice Longoria Beldon Roofing Company appeals the district court’s order denying its motion to compel'arbitration pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). See generally 9 U.S.C. §§ 1-16 (West, Westlaw through P.L. 113-296). By one issue, Beldon contends that it has the legal right to arb
Stroupe v. Government Employees Insurancepublic domain
By Judge Edward L. Hogshire This matter is before the Court on the plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment and the defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. The parties have fully briefed the issue, and on June 22,2007, the parties gave oral argument on the same. Both parties filed Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Having carefully considered the parties’ briefs, arguments, and the controlling law, the C
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DAVID C. GUADERRAMA, District Judge. Before the Court for consideration is Plaintiff United National Insurance Company’s (“UNIC”) Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 28) filed in the above-captioned action. Invoking this Court’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1), diversity of citizenship, Plaintiff brought this declaratory judgment action pursuant to 28 U.S