Legal Opinion

Amusement Equipment, Inc. v. Carl Heinz Mordelt, Heinz Mordelt Gmbh and Co. K.G. "Heimo", Defendants

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Decided December 31, 1985No. 84-3571PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

GOLDBERG, Circuit Judge.

It all started out innocently enough with a contract to deliver a mechanical display elephant and four remote control cars. The German engineering of appellee Heimo Heinz Mordelt GMBH & Co. K.G. (“Heimo”) would boost the efforts of Florida’s Amusement Equipment, Inc. (“Amusement”) to amuse and entertain for profit. But where Hannibal’s elephants managed to cross the snowy Alps with relative ease, this elephant and its vehicular entourage had an unexpected layover in a London airport on the way to their new world. Thus, for want of a transatlantic flight, Amusement’s…

2Cases cited31 opinions

  1. International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
  2. Burger King Corp. v. RudzewiczSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  3. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. WoodsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  4. Hanson v. DencklaSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
  5. Helicopteros Nacionales De Colombia, S. A. v. HallSupreme Court of the United States · 1984

26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Holt Oil & Gas Corporation and Faywin Investments, Pty. Ltd., Plaintiffs-Counter v. Ralph L. Harvey, Defendant-CounterCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1986
  2. Zola W. Rittenhouse v. Edward H. Mabry, Jr.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1987
  3. Lockert v. BreedloveSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1987
  4. Cariaga v. Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of NevadaNevada Supreme Court · 1988
  5. Nutri-West v. GibsonWyoming Supreme Court · 1988

6 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