Everything Elec., Inc. v. Transcontinental Ins. Co., 52 F.3d 332 (9th Cir. 1995). · Go Syfert
Search
Everything Elec., Inc. v. Transcontinental Ins. Co., 52 F.3d 332 (9th Cir. 1995). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“according to arizona law, a court may 10 look to extrinsic evidence to determine the parties' intent in forming the contract. . . . this 11 rule applies whether the insured or the insurer is seeking to present the parol evidence.”
25 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: James River Insurance Company v. Gear (azd, 2021-10-13)
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995 2010 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) James River Insurance Company v. Gear (2×) also: Cited as authority (rule)
D. Ariz. · 2021 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
according to arizona law, a court may 10 look to extrinsic evidence to determine the parties' intent in forming the contract. . . . this 11 rule applies whether the insured or the insurer is seeking to present the parol evidence.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) James River Insurance Company v. Gear
D. Ariz. · 2021 · confidence medium
Co., 52 F.3d 332, 332 (9th Cir. 1995) 8 (“According to Arizona law, a court may look to extrinsic evidence to determine the 9 parties’ intent in forming the contract.”) (citing Darner, 682 P.2d at 398 ). 10 Plaintiff now argues that courts regularly deny attempts by insureds to obtain “other 11 claims” discovery because it is irrelevant to coverage issues.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Everything Electric, Inc.
v.
Transcontinental Insurance Company
93-56620.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Apr 10, 1995.
52 F.3d 332
Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 69%
Citer courts: D. Arizona (1)

52 F.3d 332
NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.

EVERYTHING ELECTRIC, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
TRANSCONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 93-56620.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 5, 1995.[*]
Decided April 10, 1995.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, No. CV-93-03822-LEW; Laughlin E. Waters, District Judge, Presiding.

Before: NOONAN, O'SCANNLAIN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

1

This appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Lee v. Schmidt-Wenzel, 766 F.2d 1387, 1389 (9th Cir.1985); see also Smith v. Phillips, 881 F.2d 902, 904 (10th Cir.1989).

2

DISMISSED.

*

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for submission on the record and briefs and without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a), Ninth Circuit R. 34-4