Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Notice: This Summary Order May Not Be Cited As Precedential Authority, but May Be Called to the Attention of the Court in a Subsequent Stage of This Case, in a Related Case, or in Any Case for Purposes of Collateral Estoppel or Res Judicata. See Second Circuit Rule 0.23
- 99 F.3d 402
RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY and New York Marine & GeneralInsurance Company, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.CERTAIN MEMBER COMPANIES, Institute of London Underwriters,(General Accident "C" A/C, Assicurazioni Generali S.P.A., LaConcorde Compagnie D'Assurances, Indemnity Marine Assurance1/1/72, Eagle Star Insurance Co. Ltd., AG Belgium per EagleStar, Sphere Drake Insurance Co. 2 A/C, Ocean MarineInsurance Co. Ltd., Guardian Royal Exchange (UK) Ltd., GanMinster, AXA Marine and Aviation Insurance (UK) Ltd.,Northern U/W Agency "J" A/C, Skandia Marine, L'Union desAssurances de Paris Group, Phoenix Assurance Co. Ltd.,Maritime Insurance Co. No. 1 A/C and Terra Nova),Defendants-Appellants
Appearing for Appellants: John M. Woods, Thacher Proffitt & Wood, N.Y., N.Y.
Appearing for Appellee: David H. Fromm, Chalos & Brown, N.Y., N.Y.
Present KEARSE, MAHONEY, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
SUMMARY ORDER
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of record from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and was argued by counsel.
ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, it is now hereby ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment of said District Court be and it hereby is affirmed substantially for the reasons stated in Judge Chin's Opinion dated June 1, 1995. We see no error of law, nor any clearly erroneous finding of fact. We have considered all of appellants' contentions on this appeal and have found them to be without merit. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.