Filed: Dec. 14, 2006
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS December 14, 2006 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk _ No. 06-50552 Summary Calendar _ MID-CONTINENT CASUALTY COMPANY, Plaintiff–Counter Defendant–Appellee, versus DANESHJOU COMPANY, INC.; ET AL, Defendants, DANESHJOU COMPANY, INC.; M. B. DANESHJOU, Defendants–Counter Claimants–Appellants. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (USDC No. 1:05–CV–
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS December 14, 2006 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk _ No. 06-50552 Summary Calendar _ MID-CONTINENT CASUALTY COMPANY, Plaintiff–Counter Defendant–Appellee, versus DANESHJOU COMPANY, INC.; ET AL, Defendants, DANESHJOU COMPANY, INC.; M. B. DANESHJOU, Defendants–Counter Claimants–Appellants. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (USDC No. 1:05–CV–1..
More
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS December 14, 2006 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk _______________________ No. 06-50552 Summary Calendar _______________________ MID-CONTINENT CASUALTY COMPANY, Plaintiff–Counter Defendant–Appellee, versus DANESHJOU COMPANY, INC.; ET AL, Defendants, DANESHJOU COMPANY, INC.; M. B. DANESHJOU, Defendants–Counter Claimants–Appellants. __________________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (USDC No. 1:05–CV–182–SS) __________________________________________________________ Before REAVLEY, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Daneshjou Company Inc. and M.B. Daneshjou (collectively “Daneshjou”) appeal the * 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 R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 1 district court’s summary declaratory judgment that Mid-Continent Casualty Company owes Daneshjou no duty to defend or indemnify. We affirm for the reasons given by the district court in its very thorough discussion of the issue of manifestation and the evidence regarding the same. AFFIRMED. 2
