Legal Opinion
Westerman v. Grow
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided October 6, 1961PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
METZNER, District Judge.
Defendant Metropolitan Telecommunications Corporation moves pursuant to F.R.Civ.Pro. 12(b), 28 U.S.C.A., for a dismissal of the complaint on the grounds that service of the summons was improperly made and that venue has been laid in the wrong district.
While the return of the marshal states that the person served on behalf of the corporation was a “foreman in charge”, it is clear from reading the papers that this person was merely a shop foreman of a department of the defendant corporation. The division in which he worked involved only one of the types of machines…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Jacobson v. Indianapolis Power & Light CompanyDistrict Court, N.D. Indiana · 1958
- Garbe v. HUMISTON-KEELING AND COMPANYDistrict Court, E.D. Illinois · 1956
- Hintz v. Austenal Laboratories, Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 1952
- Sawyer v. Soaring Society of America, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1960
- Cahill v. St. Mary's HospitalDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1956
3Cited by12 opinions
- Jerry Wayne Davis v. Hill Engineering, Inc. And Williams-Mcwilliams Co., Inc., DefendantsCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1977
- Burbank International, Ltd. v. Gulf Consolidated International Inc.District Court, N.D. Texas · 1977
- JOSCAR COMPANY v. Consolidated Sun Ray, Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 1963
- Baksay v. Rensellear Polytech InstituteDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1968
- Rixner v. WhiteDistrict Court, D. North Dakota · 1976
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.