Legal Opinion

Killebrew v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co.

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma

Decided September 17, 1964No. Civ. No. 64-280PublishedCited by 4 opinions

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

  1. Mecom v. Fitzsimmons Drilling Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1931
  2. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. WittSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1930
  3. 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
  4. Kurn v. YoungbloodSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1943

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Higgins v. Pittsburgh-Des Moines Co.District Court, S.D. Texas · 1986
  2. Buchanan v. Delaware Valley NewsDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1983
  3. Wiley v. Safeway Stores, Inc.District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · 1975
  4. Reed v. Safeway Stores, Inc.District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · 1975

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

Powered by the Exa API