Spong v. Fidelity National Property & Casualty Insurance

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that “[a]n intervening change in law must be binding on this court,” and “merely persuasive, not binding” interpretations do not overcome the rule of orderliness
• stating that a question of preemption “certainly falls within the ambit of 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b)”
• noting that “[a]n intervening change in law must be binding on this court,” and “merely persuasive, not binding” interpretations do not overcome the rule of orderliness
• finding that claims contending the defendant was “liable for the manner in which it denied or processed their claim for flood damage, or the reasons it gave for denying coverage and voiding the policy” were preempted
• “Whether federal law preempts [plaintiffs’] claims certainly falls within the ambit of 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).”
• “Whether federal law preempts [plaintiffs’] claims certainly falls within the ambit of 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).