Matagorda Ventures v. Travelers Lloyds Ins, 01-21273 (2002)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Number: 01-21273
Visitors: 6
Filed: Nov. 11, 2002
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit No. 01-21273 MATAGORDA VENTURES INC.; WATCH WHOLESALERS CO., Plaintiffs-Appellants, VERSUS TRAVELERS LLOYDS INSURANCE COMPANY; FARMINGTON CASUALTY CO., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court For the Southern District of Texas H-01-CV-440 November 8, 2002 Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Based on a careful review of the summary judgment record and after hearing argument of counsel and
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit No. 01-21273 MATAGORDA VENTURES INC.; WATCH WHOLESALERS CO., Plaintiffs-Appellants, VERSUS TRAVELERS LLOYDS INSURANCE COMPANY; FARMINGTON CASUALTY CO., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court For the Southern District of Texas H-01-CV-440 November 8, 2002 Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Based on a careful review of the summary judgment record and after hearing argument of counsel and c..
More
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit No. 01-21273 MATAGORDA VENTURES INC.; WATCH WHOLESALERS CO., Plaintiffs-Appellants, VERSUS TRAVELERS LLOYDS INSURANCE COMPANY; FARMINGTON CASUALTY CO., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court For the Southern District of Texas H-01-CV-440 November 8, 2002 Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Based on a careful review of the summary judgment record and after hearing argument of counsel and considering the briefs of the parties, we agree with the district court that the claims asserted against Matagorda in the underlying Swatch action did not arise out of an offense committed in the course of advertising Matagorda’s * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. goods, products or services. The judgment of the district court is therefore affirmed. AFFIRMED. 2
Source: CourtListener
