Legal Opinion

Marks v. Autocar Co.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Decided February 17, 1955No. Civ. No. 16075PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

KIRKPATRICK, Chief Judge.

It seems to me that the rationale of the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Central-Penn National Bank of Philadelphia v. Portner, 201 F.2d 607, as appearing in the opinion of -Chief Judge Biggs, requires the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment to be denied. Under the Portner case, the genuineness of her, or her agent’s, motive in abstaining from voting and in her subsequent dissent is a material issue in this case which cannot be disposed of on this motion. True, in the present case the plaintiff has owned some of her stock for several…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Marks v. Autocar CompanyDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1954
  2. Central-Penn Nat. Bank of Philadelphia v. PortnerCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1953

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Troupiansky v. Henry Disston & Sons, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1957

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API