Legal Opinion

Isbrandtsen Co. v. United States

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided February 11, 1953PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

CONGER, District Judge.

The above entitled case is one of 15 identical suits except for the name of the plaintiif, the type and extent of the cargo and the amount sued for. Plaintiff claims jurisdiction under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a) (2).

Identical motions are made in each case. My opinion in the above case will be dispositive of all the motions.

Defendant moves for an order dismissing the complaint under Rule 12(b) (1, 2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C., on the ground thát this Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action and over the person of…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Mansfield, Coldwater & Lake Michigan Railway Co. v. SwanSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
  2. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
  3. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Co. v. WillardSupreme Court of the United States · 1911
  4. Johnson v. United States Shipping Bd. Emergency Fleet CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1930
  5. Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co. v. Chesapeake Lighterage & Towing Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1922

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Isbrandtsen Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1956
  2. Isbrandtsen Company, Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1956

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

Powered by the Exa API