Essex Insurance v. Yi

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• following St. Paul Surplus Lines in interpreting a similar exclusion under California law
• “Even if the state court ultimately 18 vindicates Haring, the incident at issue nonetheless constituted either an ‘assault and battery’ or 19 ‘an act or omission in connection with the prevention or suppression of such acts.’”
• “Even if the state court ultimately 2 vindicates Haring, the incident at issue nonetheless constituted either an ‘assault and battery’ or 3 ‘an act or omission in connection with the prevention or suppression of such acts.’”
• “Even if the state court ultimately 23 vindicates Haring, the incident at issue nonetheless constituted either an ‘assault and battery’ or 24 ‘an act or omission in connection with the prevention or suppression of such acts.’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).