Legal Opinion
Kniess v. Armour & Co.
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided November 30, 1938No. 27044 and 27052PublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtGorman, J.
The first question to determine is whether the trial court erred in refusing to remove the cause to the District Court of the United States. From an inspection of the petition and the application for removal, it appears' that Armour & Company, being incorporated under the laws of Kentucky, is to be considered a citizen of that state while both Kniess, the plaintiff, and Burmeister, a joint defendant, are citizens of the state of Ohio. It is obvious that the ground for removal is that there was a diversity of citizenship in respect to Armour & Company and the plaintiff Kniess.
Where there are…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Strawbridge v. CurtissSupreme Court of the United States · 1806
- Alabama Great Southern Railway Co. v. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1906
- Meyer v. Construction CompanySupreme Court of the United States · 1879
- Wecker v. National Enameling & Stamping Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1907
- Barney v. LathamSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Builders Supply Co. v. McCabeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1951
- Losito v. Kruse, Jr.Ohio Supreme Court · 1940
- Nichols v. NoldSupreme Court of Kansas · 1953
- Hunter v. Derby Foods, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1940
- Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York v. Federal ExpressCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1943
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.