Legal Opinion
Bramlett v. Arthur Murray, Incorporated
District Court, D. South Carolina
Decided February 1, 1966No. Civ. A. 4716PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SIMONS, District Judge.
Defendant Arthur Murray, Inc. has appeared specially to move to quash the attempted service of process on it, and to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction upon grounds that: (1) Defendant is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware, and is not domesticated in the state of South Carolina; (2) Defendant is not now, nor has it ever been, doing business in South Carolina so as to make it amenable to the jurisdiction of this court; and (3) The atthmpted service under Section 10-424 or 12-23.14 of the Code of Laws of South Carolina for 1962 is…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Hanson v. DencklaSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
- McGee v. International Life InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Pennoyer v. NeffSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Travelers Health Assn. v. Virginia Ex Rel. State Corporation Comm'nSupreme Court of the United States · 1950
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- CB ASKINS v. Firedoor Corp. of Fla.Court of Appeals of South Carolina · 1984
- Roorda v. VOLKSWAGENWERK, AGDistrict Court, D. South Carolina · 1979
- Dickson v. Hertz Corp.District Court, Virgin Islands · 1983
- McNeely v. Clayton and Lambert Manufacturing Co.District Court, D. Minnesota · 1968
- Russell v. City State Bank of Wellington, TexasDistrict Court, W.D. Oklahoma · 1967
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.