Legal Opinion

Hintz v. Austenal Laboratories, Inc.

District Court, E.D. New York

Decided May 12, 1952No. Civ. 12536PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BYERS, District Judge.

This is a defendant’s motion to transfer this cause sounding in tort, to the Southern District, upon the ground that venue does not lie in the Eastern District, since the defendant, a New York. corporation, has its only place of business in the Borough of Manhattan, Southern District, and none in.any county in the Eastern District. That is stated in the affidavit of Soller, the vice-president.

The attorney for the defendant, in his affidavit, recites that jurisdiction is based upon diversity and the amount in controversy; his further' statement that it appears from the…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Eastman Kodak Co. v. Boyce Motor Lines, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1947

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Jerry Wayne Davis v. Hill Engineering, Inc. And Williams-Mcwilliams Co., Inc., DefendantsCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1977
  2. Burbank International, Ltd. v. Gulf Consolidated International Inc.District Court, N.D. Texas · 1977
  3. JOSCAR COMPANY v. Consolidated Sun Ray, Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 1963
  4. Baksay v. Rensellear Polytech InstituteDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1968
  5. Jacobson v. Indianapolis Power & Light CompanyDistrict Court, N.D. Indiana · 1958

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API