Cases

984 F.2d 915 80 Ed. Law Rep. 554 TIOGA PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT # 15 OF WILLIAMS COUNTY, STATEOF NORTH DAKOTA, Appellee,v.UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY, Appellant. No. 90-5447. United States Court of Appeals,Eighth Circuit. Submitted June 10, 1992.Decided Jan. 28, 1993.Rehearing Denied March 11, 1993.

Hon. Vanessa L. Bryant, United States District Judge This is a suit brought by Arch Insurance Company ("Arch" or "Plaintiff") to enforce certain indemnity agreements issued by Centerplan Construction Company, LLC ("Centerplan"), Center Earth, LLC ("Center Earth") and certain affiliates (collectively "Defendants"). The indemnity agreements were issued in consideration for Arch's issuance of certain surety bonds. The bonds were issued

McMILLIAN, Circuit Judge. United States Gypsum Co. (USG) appeals from a final judgment entered in the Dis *400 trict Court 1 for the District of North Dakota upon a jury verdict in favor of Hebron Public School District No. 13 (Hebron). 723

130 F.Supp.2d 631 (2001) NEW JERSEY PAYPHONE ASSOCIATION INC., a not for profit corporation organized under the laws of New Jersey, Plaintiff, v. TOWN OF WEST NEW YORK, Defendant. No. Civ.A. 00-1843. United States District Court, D. New Jersey. March 7, 2001. *632 Jeffrey A. Donner, Stryker, Tams & Dill, Newark, NJ, for plain

788 F.Supp.2d 253 (2011) Ricardo COPANTITLA, Diego Diaz De La Vega, Ignacio Garcia, Freddy Guachun, Julio Lantigua, Manuel Lizandro, Martin Lopez, Sebastian Lopez, Augustin Maldonado, Henry Matute, Joelito Melendez, Aussencio Ramirez, and Jose Luis Vargas, Plaintiffs, v. FISKARDO ESTIATORIO, INC. d/b/a Thalassa Restaurant, George Makris, Julia Makris, Steve Makris, and Fantis Foods, Inc., Defendants. No. 09 Civ. 1608(RJH).</

666 F.Supp. 649 (1985) GILBANE BUILDING COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. The NEMOURS FOUNDATION, et al., Defendants. Civ. A. No. 83-58-WKS. United States District Court, D. Delaware. January 25, 1985. *650 Stuart B. Young, Josy B. Ingersoll, Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor, Wilmington, Del., George Anthony Smith, Randall F. Hafer, Da

360 S.E.2d 325 (1987) SCHOOL BOARD OF the CITY OF NORFOLK, et al. v. UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY, et al. Record No. 870265. Supreme Court of Virginia. September 4, 1987. Keith D. Boyette (Charles F. Witthoefft, Richmond; John C. Ivins, Jr.; Shepard M. Remis; Marjorie S. Cooke, Boston, Mass.; James C. Roberts; Bradfute W. Davenport, Jr.; Russell V. Palmore, Jr.; Geo

The suit was upon a policy of life insurance in Code form, and resulted in judgment for the plaintiff. Defendant's pleas were: (1) A denial of liability under its policy; (2) that the application which is made a part of the contract provides that the policy shall not become effective "until the first premium is paid and the policy delivered to and received by the applicant during her life and good health"; that the insured died before the payment of the first premium and before the pol

Whittle, J., delivered the opinion of the court. The property involved in this litigation consists of three adjoining tracts of land situated on Laurel creek, Tazewell county, Virginia, embracing in the aggregate a surface area of 363f acres. This land was, on June 17, 1895, held in fee simple as follows: Hattie E. Stras and A. C. Spotts were the owners of 150 acres, and they, jointly with H

Marshall, Chief Justice. Richard Brooke, by his last will, empowered his executors to sell his whole estate, and William Garnett, the plaintiff, alone proved the will, and took the executorship upon himself. On the 10th of June, 1818, William Garnett, sold the estate called Mantapike, to William H. Macon, the defendant, “for the sum of twenty-two dollars per acre; six

MARSHAIvT, Chief Justice. Richard Brooke, by his last will, empowered his executors to sell his whole estate, and William Garnett, the plaintiff, alone proved the will, and took the executorship upon himself. On the 10th of June, 1818, William Garnett, sold the estate called Mantapike, to William H. Macon, the defendant, “for the sum of twenty-two dollars per acre ; six thousand dollars of which are to be paid

• MARSHALL, Circuit Justice. Richard Brooke, by his last will, empowered his executors to sell his whole estate, and William Garnett, the plaintiff, alone proved the will, and took the executorship upon himself. On the 10th of June, 1818, William Garnett sold the estate called Mantapike, to William H. Macon, the defendant, “for the sum of twenty-two dollars per acre, $6000 of which are to be paid on the 1st day of January next, wh

the following opinion was delivered by MARSHALL, Chief Justice. Richard Brooke, by his last will, empowered his ex’rs, to sell his whole estate, and William Garnett, the plaintiff, alone proved the will, and took the executor-ship upon himself. *On the 10th of June, 1818, William Garnett, sold the estate called Mantipike, to William H. Macon, the defendant, “for the sum of twenty-two dollars per

The Judges delivered their opinions.* Judge Carr. In 1794, when the rage for speculation in wild lands was at the height, Moore and M’Clung entered into a contract for taking up in partnership 60,000 acres of land, in the county of Greenbrier, on Gauley river, and its waters, along the south side of the river, below Hominy creek. Having made many entries, they had an

HamiltoN, Judge, delivered tbe following opinion':'- The bill in tbis ease was filed on November 19, 1919, seeking to enjoin the Treasurer of Porto Pico from collecting certain taxes under the Porto Rican Act of June 15, 1919 (No. 55, Acts 1919, pp. 226 — 300). The bill alleges that-the plaintiff is a French citizen doing business in San Juan as a dealer in jewelry, and that the defendant Treasurer has stopped

THURMAN, J. Plaintiff brought this action to recover the penalty of a bond executed by the defendant to insure the performance of a contract to install and keep in repair certain elevators in the Walker Bank building, Salt Lake City, Utah. The case was tried upon plaintiff’s second amended complaint, defendant’s answer thereto, and plaintiff’s reply. Before attempting to state the issues, we will briefly ref

Hoppjian, Judge: Voluminous and complicated as is the record of this case, the statement of a few prominent facts extracted from its contents, and the suggestion of a few principles applicable to the subject, will suffice to illustrate and control the decision of the points presented for adjudication. *0

MARSHALL, Chief Justice, remarked that it was not in the power of the marshal to summon more than twenty-four, as the act of assembly authorized1 only that number. If he should summon twenty-five, the last would not have power to act; and the marshal would have no power to displace any one of the others, to put-the last in his place. When the panel had been completed by the marshal, its deficiencies co