Legal Opinion

Mead Corp. v. Allendale Mutual Insurance

District Court, N.D. Ohio

Decided January 3, 1979No. C75-1035PublishedCited by 34 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER

MANOS, District Judge.

The plaintiff, Mead Corporation (hereinafter “Mead”), was organized under the laws of Ohio and has its principal place of business in Ohio. Mead has brought this action against four defendants, Allendale Mutual Insurance Co. (hereinafter “Allen-dale”), Allmanna Suenska Elektriska Aktiebolaget Inc. (hereinafter “ASEA Inc.”), Stal-Laval Turbine AB (hereinafter “StalLaval”), and Allmanna Suenska Elektriska Aktiebolaget AB (hereinafter “ASEA AB”). Two of the four defendants are citizens of the United States and two are citizens of Sweden.…

2Cases cited44 opinions

  1. Temple v. Wean United, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1977
  2. Guaranty Trust Co. v. YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
  3. Commissioner v. Estate of BoschSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  4. Southern MacHine Company, Inc. v. Mohasco Industries, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1968
  5. Seely v. White Motor Co.California Supreme Court · 1965

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

3Cited by34 opinions

  1. Moorman Manufacturing Co. v. National Tank Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1982
  2. Pennsylvania Glass Sand Corporation v. Caterpillar Tractor CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1981
  3. Spring Motors Distributors, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1985
  4. Chemtrol Adhesives, Inc. v. American Manufacturers Mutual InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1989
  5. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1980

29 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