Legal Opinion

Solt v. Interstate Folding Box Company

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Decided August 19, 1955No. Civ. A. 16536PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

FOLLMER, District Judge.

This matter is now before the Court on plaintiff’s motion for rehearing and vacating of the judgment entered on defendant’s motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of venue in that defendant, an Ohio corporation, was not “doing business” in the State of Pennsylvania. 123 F.Supp. 376.

This Court feeling bound by the Pennsylvania law as announced in Shambe v. Delaware & Hudson R. Co., 288 Pa. 240, 135 A. 755, and Lutz v. Foster & Kester Co., Inc., 367 Pa. 125, 79 A.2d 222, granted the motion to dismiss. In stating the facts pertinent to the issue of whether this foreign…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Shambe v. Delaware Hudson R. R. Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
  2. Lutz v. Foster & Kester Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1951
  3. Kulicke v. Rollway Bearing CompanyDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1955
  4. Solt v. Interstate Folding Box Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1954

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Botwinick v. Credit Exchange, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1965
  2. Florio v. Powder Power Tool Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1957
  3. Swavely v. Vandegrift, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Bucks County1958
  4. Florio ex rel. Florio v. Powder-Power Tool Corp.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1956
  5. Mario Florio v. Powder Power Tool Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1957

1 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