State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., an Illinois Corp. v. Thomas M. Ishigo, & Ellen Ishigo, 944 F.2d 909 (9th Cir. 1991). · Go Syfert
Search
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., an Illinois Corp. v. Thomas M. Ishigo, & Ellen Ishigo, 944 F.2d 909 (9th Cir. 1991). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
40 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Sever v. National Labor Relations Board (ca9, 2000-11-06)
Treatment trajectory · 1991 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1991 2008 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" Sever v. National Labor Relations Board
9th Cir. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See NLRB v. Alaska Pulp Corp., 944 F.2d 909 , 1991 WL 181760 (9th Cir.1991) (unpublished disposition). 2.
cited Cited "see" Florian Sever David Hiebert Mark W. Simmons Robert Henry Kinville Edward Reiner United Paperworkers International Union, Afl-Cio v. National Labor Relations Board, and Alaska Pulp Corporation, Respondent-Intervenor. Alaska Pulp Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board, and Florian Sever David Hiebert Mark W. Simmons Robert Henry Kinville Edward Reiner United Paperworkers International Union, Afl-Cio, Respondents-Intervenors
9th Cir. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See NRLB v. Alaska Pulp Corp., 944 F.2d 909 , 1991 WL 181760 (9th Cir. 1991) (unpublished disposition). 2.
discussed Cited "see" National Labor Relations Board v. R & H Coal Company, Incorporated
4th Cir. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
See Alaska Pulp Corp., 300 NLRB 232 , 243 (1990), enforced mem., 944 F.2d 909 (9th Cir.1991) (economic strikers). 35 The administrative law judge found that R & H's arguments with respect to the nature of the offer were "lacking in merit." The Board adopted this finding.
discussed Cited "see" National Labor Relations Board v. Alaska Pulp Corporation
9th Cir. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See ALJ's Decision in Alaska Pulp Corp. v. Lawson, NLRB No. 19-CA-20552, slip op. at 2 (Feb. 8, 1991) (ER # 4 at 2) ("In Alaska Pulp Corporation (Alaska Pulp I), 296 NLRB No. 155 (October 10, 1989) [order enforced by this court in an unpublished disposition, 944 F.2d 909 (9th Cir.1991) (TABLE) ] the Board found[,] inter alia, that Respondent violated the Act by refusing to offer qualified unreinstated strikers on the preferential recall list (the Laidlaw list) any and all available positions in each department and in each progressive level thereof.") 2 Specifically, the ALJ rejected Lawson's a…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." FinancialApps, LLC v. Envestnet, Inc.
D. Del. · 2023 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See McMunn v. Babcock & Wilcox Power Generation Grp., Inc., 869 F.3d 246, 267 (3d Cir. 2017) (“Expert evidence is generally required when an issue is beyond the ken of a lay jury.”); see also Segner v. Gladsjo, 944 F.2d 909 n.2 (9th Cir. 1991) (noting that it was not error for a district court to exclude expert testimony when it “was within the common knowledge and experience of jurors”). c.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, an Illinois Corporation
v.
Thomas M. Ishigo, and Ellen Ishigo
90-15990.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Sep 23, 1991.
944 F.2d 909
Unpublished

944 F.2d 909

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois
corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Thomas M. ISHIGO, and Ellen Ishigo, Defendants-Appellants,

No. 90-15990.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Aug. 19, 1991.
Decided Sept. 23, 1991.

Before D.W. NELSON, CYNTHIA HOLCOMB HALL and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

1

MEMORANDUM[*]

2

Thomas and Ellen Ishigo appeal from the district court's grant of a declaratory judgment in favor of State Farm Insurance. The district court held that Hawaii's underinsured motorist statute, as it existed in 1986, did not require that rejection of underinsured motorist coverage be in writing. Haw.Rev.Stat. § 431-448(b).

3

We reverse because the Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii recently held that the statute did require a written rejection. Mollena v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., No. 14648 (Haw.Sup.Ct. Aug. 21, 1991).[1] Thus, it was error to grant judgment in favor of State Farm.

4

REVERSED.

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3

1

The Ishigos also appeal from the district court's holdings that an offer sent to them was a sufficient offer under section 431-448(b) and that they received it. We need not decide those issues, for even if the offer itself was sufficient and received, the result of this case would not change