Legal Opinion
Max Daetwyler Corp. v. Meyer
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided December 8, 1983No. Civ. A. 81-4712PublishedCited by 52 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
LOUIS H. POLLAK, District Judge.
On April 13, 1983, I entered an Order denying defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of in personam, jurisdiction. In a Memorandum, 560 F.Supp. 869, accompanying that Order I found that “[wjere jurisdiction over defendant to be tested solely by his contacts with Pennsylvania, one would be hard pressed, on these facts, to find contacts sufficient to satisfy Fifth Amendment standards.” But because plaintiff has asserted a claim under a federal statute against an alien defendant, I found that “jurisdiction may appropriately be determined on the…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Reuben J. Katz, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Carte Blanche CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1974
- Cryomedics, Inc. v. Spembly, LimitedDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 1975
- Engineered Sports Products v. Brunswick Corp.District Court, D. Utah · 1973
- Superior Coal Co. v. Ruhrkohle A.G.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1979
- Alco Standard Corporation v. BenalalDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1972
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by52 opinions
- In Re Holly Flor and Rudolph Mangels, Debtors. Holly Flor and Rudolph Mangels, Debtors-Appellants v. Bot Financial Corp., Creditor-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1996
- Max Daetwyler Corp., a New York Corporation v. R. Meyer, a West German Corporation. Appeal of Rolf MeyerCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1985
- Rottmund v. Continental Assurance Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1992
- APCC Services, Inc. v. Sprint Communications Co., LPDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2003
- Emme v. C.O.M.B., Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1988
47 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.