Legal Opinion
Automotive Equipment v. Trico Products Corporation
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided April 2, 1935PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
PATTERSON, District Judge.
The motion is by the defendant to quash service of process for lack of jurisdiction.
The suit is brought under the Declaratory Judgment Act of June 14, 1934 (Jud. Code § 274d, 28 USCA § 400). The plaintiff’s pleading, styled a petition, opens with allegations that the plaintiff is a New York corporation with its principal place of business in the Eastern District of New York; that the defendant is a New York corporation with a “principal or other” place of business in this district; that jurisdiction rests on the Declaratory Judgment Act and on the patent laws. For a…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Shaw v. Quincy Mining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Barrow Steamship Co. v. KaneSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
- General Electric Co. v. Marvel Rare Metals Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1932
- In Re HohorstSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
- Hutchinson v. Chase & Gilbert, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1930
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Southern Pac. Co. v. McAdooCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1936
- Gully v. Interstate Natural Gas Co.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1936
- Automotive Equipment v. Trico Products CorporationDistrict Court, W.D. New York · 1935
- Sure-Fit Products Co. v. Fry Products, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1938
- American Blower Corp. v. B. F. Sturtevant Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1945
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.