Legal Opinion

Clarence Straits Salmon Co. v. Alaska Pacific Salmon Corp.

District Court, W.D. Washington

Decided May 18, 1933No. 20776PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtNeterer, District Judge

(after stating the facts as above).

The right of the plaintiff to file an amended complaint is not challenged, and at the filing of the petition for removal there was not on the face of the amended complaint, or asserted in the petition, diversity of citizenship. It also appears that the gist of the action is conspiracy. It does not arise under the laws or Constitution of the United States, Little York Gold Washing & Water Co. v. Keyes, 96 U. S. 199, 24 L. Ed. 656; or arise out of dispute of parties as to the operation or effect thereof, Blackburn v. Portland Gold-Mining Co., 175 U. S. 571,…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Gold-Washing and Water Co. v. KeyesSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
  2. Blackburn v. Portland Gold Mining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1900
  3. Chappell v. WaterworthSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
  4. Charroin v. Romort Mfg. Co.District Court, W.D. Washington · 1916
  5. Leggett v. Great Northern Ry. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Minnesota · 1910

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Gray v. Stanford Research InstituteDistrict Court, N.D. Texas · 1952

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

Powered by the Exa API