Legal Opinion
Mommsen v. Toro Co.
District Court, S.D. Iowa
Decided December 27, 1985No. Civ. No. 84-105-D-2PublishedCited by 27 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RULING AND ORDER QUASHING SERVICE
VIETOR, Chief Judge.
This is a products liability diversity action. Defendant Kioritz Corporation, a Japanese corporation, has moved to dismiss or quash service on the ground of insufficiency of service of process.
Plaintiff initially sued only The Toro Company, but by amendment filed June 21, 1985, added Echo, Inc., and Kioritz as defendants. On July 24, 1985, plaintiff attempted to serve Kioritz by serving a summons and amended complaint upon an attorney in Chicago, Illinois, as Kioritz’s agent. Kioritz moved to dismiss, submitting an affidavit indicating that…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Russello v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Consumer Product Safety Commission v. GTE Sylvania, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1980
- United States v. PinkSupreme Court of the United States · 1942
- National Labor Relations Board v. Amax Coal Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1981
- DeJames v. Magnificence Carriers, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1981
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by27 opinions
- Bankston v. Toyota Motor Corp.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1989
- Newport Components, Inc. v. NEC Home Electronics (U.S.A.), Inc.District Court, C.D. California · 1987
- Suzuki Motor Co. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1988
- McClenon v. Nissan Motor Corp. in U.S.A.District Court, N.D. Florida · 1989
- Pochop v. Toyota Motor Co.District Court, S.D. Mississippi · 1986
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.