Hazel L. Glesenkamp v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.
Hazel L. GLESENKAMP, Appellant, v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., Appellee
Glesenkamp v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 540 F.2d 458 (9th Cir. 1976)
Opinion
OPINION PER CURIAM:
Upon the basis of the very carefully reasoned “MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER”, written by District Judge Renfrew and reported at 71 F.R.D. 1 (N.D. Cal.1976), 1
the District Court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
1
. Another of Judge Renfrew’s opinions that pertains to the controversy is reported at 344 F.Supp. 517 (N.D.Cal.1972).
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(“The liberal amendment policy of the Federal Rules was not 15 intended to allow a party to circumvent the effects of summary judgment by amending 16 the complaint every time a termination of the action threatens.”)
Cited by 18 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- Angela Schlacter-Jones v. General Telephone of California Patricia Leathers Carol Todd Doug Bartrip
- M/V American Queen v. San Diego Marine Construction Corp.
- Hartford Cas. Ins. Co. v. Halliburton Co.
- Bourn v. Tomlinson Interest, Inc.
- United States ex rel. Westrick v. Second Chance Body Armor, Inc.
- Amcast Industrial Corp. v. Detrex Corp.
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.