Legal Opinion
Schwartz v. Bowman
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided October 18, 1957PublishedCited by 20 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
DIMOCK, District Judge.
This action was instituted against defendants Cyrus S. Eaton, Walter J. Tuohy, and Cyrus S. Eaton, Jr., by service of a summons upon them outside of the District. They move for summary judgment dismissing the action as to them upon the ground that the Investment Company Act of 1940, 54 Stat. 789, 15 U.S.C. § 80a-l et seq., the ostensible authority for such out-of-district service, is inapplicable. In the event that the Investment Company Act is held to be applicable, they move, in the alternative, that there be stricken from the complaint such claims of plaintiff as do…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Hurn v. OurslerSupreme Court of the United States · 1933
- United States & Interstate Commerce Commission v. American Railway Express Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1924
- Breswick & Co. v. United StatesDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1955
- Breswick & Co. v. United StatesDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1956
- Miller v. HanoDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1947
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Leist v. SimplotCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1980
- Brown v. BullockDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1961
- Sandor Schwartz v. Cyrus S. Eaton, Walter J. Tuohy, and Cyrus S. Eaton, Jr.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1959
- Cooper v. North Jersey Trust Company of Ridgewood, NJDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1964
- Hoover v. AllenDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1965
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.