Legal Opinion

Industrial Lithographic Co. v. Mendelsohn

District Court, D. New Jersey

Decided February 24, 1954No. Civ. A. 965-52PublishedCited by 33 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEANEY, District Judge.

The question before the court on this motion is whether a claim introduced into an action by a third party should afford the basis for removal.

Industrial Lithographic Co. Inc., a New York corporation, originally began this action by bringing suit in the courts of the State of New Jersey against defendants, Louis H. Mendelsohn and Abram C. Mendelsohn, individually and trading as Excello Hosiery Mills, citizens of New Jersey. Defendants filed an answer to the complaint and a third party complaint against McKesson & Robbins, Inc., a Maryland corporation, who thereafter…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. SheetsSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
  2. Sequoyah Feed & Supply Co. v. RobinsonDistrict Court, W.D. Arkansas · 1951
  3. President & Directors of Manhattan Co. v. Monogram Associates, Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 1949

3Cited by33 opinions

  1. Carl Heck Engineers, Inc. v. Lafourche Parish Police Jury, Defendant-Third Party v. Maryland Casualty Company, Third PartyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1980
  2. Federal Insurance Company v. TYCO INTERNATIONALDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2006
  3. Central of Georgia Railway Company, Third-Party v. Riegel Textile Corporation, Third-PartyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1970
  4. White v. Baltic Conveyor CompanyDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1962
  5. Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Aaron-Lincoln Mercury, Inc.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1983

28 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