Legal Opinion
RONSON CORPORATION v. LIQUIFIN AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT Et Al. Appeal of FRANKLIN NATIONAL BANK and Franklin New York Corporation
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Decided August 15, 1973No. 73-1606PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
2Per curiam
We are called upon in this particular appeal to resolve the facially eon-flicting venue provisions of the National Banking Act and those of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. 1 The defendant Franklin National Bank has its principal office in Brooklyn, New York, claims that it may be sued only in the appropriate courts located in that state, citing the National Bank Act, specifically 12 U.S.C. § 94, 2 and moves for dismissal from this suit which was filed in the District of New Jersey.
The plaintiff has based the litigation on the provisions of the Securities Exchange Act…
3Cases cited8 opinions
- Mercantile Nat. Bank at Dallas v. LangdeauSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Michigan National Bank v. RobertsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Klein v. BowerCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1970
- Levin v. Great Western Sugar CompanyDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1967
- United States National Bank v. HillCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1970
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
4Cited by17 opinions
- Radzanower v. Touche Ross & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Citizens & Southern National Bank v. BougasSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Odette v. Shearson, Hammill & Co., Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1975
- Attorney General v. INDUS. NATIONAL BANK OF RIMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1980
- Ronson Corporation v. Liquifin AktiengesellschaftDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1974
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.