Skip to main content
· 7/15/1996

STANFORD RANCH, INC., a California Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee

Citations

  • 89 F.3d 618
  • 96 Daily Journal DAR 8427
  • 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5212
  • 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 17317
  • 1996 WL 391774

How courts have described this case

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

  • “[A] claim dependent on the existence of an underlying contract, sounds in contract, as opposed to tort.”
  • “[A] claim dependent on the existence of an underlying contract sounds in contract, as opposed to tort.”
  • “If a claim is dependent upon the existence of an underlying contract, the claim sounds in contract, as opposed to tort.”
  • “It is the duty of the appellate court to make its own independent determination of the meaning of the language used in the contract under considera- tion.”
  • If there is 12 no coverage, the inquiry ends as “[t]here is no need to look to the exclusions because they cannot 13 expand the basic coverage granted in the insuring agreement.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Nelson, Tashima, Burns

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.