Mays v. Oxford Paper Company
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
WOOD, District Judge.
At the outset, we wish to comment on the comprehensiveness, clarity, and excellence of the briefs of counsel for both plaintiff and defendant. Such briefs are of great assistance to the Court in deciding legal problems.
I. Re Motion to Dismiss The defendant, Oxford Paper Company, has moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint on the ground that it has not been validly served with process, and that, therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction over it. .
The defendant is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Maine, and manufacturing paper products in that…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Florio v. Powder Power Tool Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1957
- Swavely v. VANDEGRIFTSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1959
3Cited by11 opinions
- Botwinick v. Credit Exchange, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1965
- National Chemsearch Corp. of New York, Inc. v. BogatinDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1964
- Securities & Exchange Commission v. Harwyn Publishing Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1964
- Baxter v. CoppockDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1962
- Crawford v. Seaboard Coast Line RailroadDistrict Court, S.D. Georgia · 1968
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.