v3369-770

CONCLUSION

For the reason set forth hereinabove, the District Court would

have jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the persons of

all defendants, and in personam jurisdiction of the appellants was

obtained in the manner provided under Rule 4 (e) and (i)

FRCP, and the order denying the motion to dissolve the restrain-

ing order was proper.

Respectfully submitted,

Williams, Skopil & Miller

Otto R. Skopil, Jr.

Attorneys for Appellee

State Farm Fire and

Casualty Company

CERTIFICATE

I certify that, in connection with the preparation of this brief,

I have examined Rules 18 and 19 of the United States Court of

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and that, in my opinion, the fore-

going brief is in full compliance with those rules.

Otto R. Skopil, Jr.

Of Attorneys for Appellee

State Farm Fire and Casualty Co.

9

---

archive.org Volume Name: govuscourtsca9briefs3369

Volume: http://archive.org/stream/govuscourtsca9briefs3369

Document Link: http://archive.org/stream/govuscourtsca9briefs3369#page/n769/mode/1up

Top Keywords (auto-generated):

skopil, rules, otto, jurisdiction, fire, farm, casualty, williams, submitted, restrain, respectfully, provided, preparation, persons, personam

Top Key Phrases (auto-generated):

farm fire, williams skopil, submitted williams, skopil miller, respectfully submitted, personam jurisdiction, miller otto, forth hereinabove, examined rules

Document Status: UGLY