Killebrew v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co.
District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
1Opinion of the Court
DAUGHERTY, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on both a motion to remand filed by the plaintiff and a motion to dismiss filed in-behalf of the defendant Crownover. The motion to dismiss is related to the motion to remand. If the motion to dismiss is well taken there is diversity and this Court will retain jurisdiction; if not well taken the requisite jurisdictional diversity is not present and the cause must be remanded.
The determinative question posed to the Court is whether or not the plaintiff has stated a claim against the defendant Crownover. The answer must be found in the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Mecom v. Fitzsimmons Drilling Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1931
- Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. WittSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1930
- Mabel Pearl Scott v. C. H. Huffman and the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company, a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1956
- Kurn v. YoungbloodSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1943
3Cited by4 opinions
- Higgins v. Pittsburgh-Des Moines Co.District Court, S.D. Texas · 1986
- Buchanan v. Delaware Valley NewsDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1983
- Wiley v. Safeway Stores, Inc.District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · 1975
- Reed v. Safeway Stores, Inc.District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · 1975