Legal Opinion

Kielczynski v. Consolidated Rail Corp.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Decided November 8, 1993No. Civ.A.93-4560PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JOYNER, District Judge.

Presently pending before this Court is the motion of the defendant, the Consolidated Rail Corporation (hereinafter “Conrail”) to Transfer this action to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on the basis of forum non conveniens. For the reasons which follow, the motion is denied.

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

According to the averments contained in the plaintiffs complaint and in his responsive brief to the instant motion, he suffered a serious back injury while in the course and scope of his employment as a carman with the…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Gulf Oil Corp. v. GilbertSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
  2. Piper Aircraft Co. v. ReynoSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  3. Stewart Organization, Inc. v. Ricoh Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
  4. Van Dusen v. BarrackSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
  5. Shutte v. Armco Steel Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1970

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Dariz v. Republic Airline Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2019
  2. National Paintball Supply, Inc. v. CossioDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1998
  3. AAMCO TRANSMISSION INC. v. JohnsonDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2009
  4. American Littoral Society v. United States Environmental Protection AgencyDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1996
  5. Matt v. Baxter Healthcare Corp.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1999

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API