Legal Opinion
Bertsch v. Canterbury
District Court, S.D. California
Decided July 29, 1955No. 15971PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
JAMES M. CARTER, District Judge.
This case involves Rule 25(a) (1), Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. 28 U.S.C.A. and requires a decision as to whether the section provides only for the substitution of a party, or provides also a means of securing in personam jurisdiction over such substituted party where none had been previously acquired over the original party.
Bertsch commenced an action against Canterbury in 1953, in the Superior court of Ventura County, California, alleging a cause of action for assault and battery. Canterbury was personally served with process while he was in California attending…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- In Re Connaway as Receiver of the Moscow National BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
- Commercial Solvents Corporation v. JassponDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1950
- Luster v. MartinCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1932
- Plimpton v. Mattakeunk Cabin Colony, Inc.District Court, D. Connecticut · 1934
- Connaway v. OvertonU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California · 1899
3Cited by4 opinions
- Bill Ransom v. Frances Hugh Brennan, of the Estate of William J. Brennan,deceasedCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1971
- C. Gilmore v. C. LockardCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2019
- Lummis v. Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of NevadaNevada Supreme Court · 1978
- Ransom v. BrennanDistrict Court, S.D. Texas · 1969