Legal Opinion
Wisehart, Friou & Koch v. Hoover
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided May 22, 1979No. 78 Civ. 1001 (CHT)PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
TENNEY, District Judge.
The defendant in this action, Herbert W. Hoover, Jr., has moved for dismissal of the complaint for lack of in personam jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. Rules 12(b)(2), (6), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rules”). 1 Hoover is a resident of Florida, and the plaintiff law firm is a resident of New York. The diversity action concerns the alleged failure of Hoover to pay legal fees in the sum of $250,000 for services purportedly rendered by the plaintiff and, in particular, by Robert E. Friou, a member of the firm. For the following reasons, the…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Hanson v. DencklaSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
- McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1936
- Harold Noel Arrowsmith, Jr. v. United Press InternationalCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1963
- Longines-Wittnauer Watch Co. v. Barnes & Reinecke, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1965
- Lambert Run Coal Co. v. Baltimore & Ohio RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Dogan v. Harbert Construction Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1980
- Birmingham Fire Insurance v. Koa Fire & Marine InsuranceDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1983
- New World Capital Corp. v. Poole Truck Line, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1985
- Birmingham Fire Insurance v. Koa Fire & Marine InsuranceDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1983
- Pennie & Edmonds v. Austad Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1988