Legal Opinion
Copperweld Steel Co. v. Demag-Mannesmann-Boehler
District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Decided March 13, 1972No. Civ. A. No. 71-920PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM and ORDER
MeCUNE, District Judge.
Defendants have moved for dismissal on the grounds that this court lacks jurisdiction. In connection with this motion both parties have filed affidavits. Consequently, we will treat the matter before us as a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendants have also moved to dissolve certain foreign attachments which plaintiff has caused to be issued.
Plaintiff Copperweld Steel Corporation (hereinafter Copperweld) is a Pennsylvania corporation. Defendants (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Demag”)…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Central Contracting Co. v. C. E. Youngdahl & Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1965
- Myers v. Mooney Aircraft, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1967
- Scafati v. Bayerische Motoren Werke AGDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1971
- Worthy Siders, Sr. v. Upper Mississippi Towing CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1970
3Cited by8 opinions
- Copperweld Steel Company, in No. 77-1493 v. Demag-Mannesmann-Bohler, Demag Stranggiess-Technik Gmbh, Demag Aktiengesellschaft, in No. 77-1494Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1978
- Hoes of America, Inc. v. HoesDistrict Court, C.D. Illinois · 1979
- St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. Travelers Indemnity Co.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1975
- Damon Coats, Inc. v. Munsingwear, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1977
- Copperweld Steel Co. v. Demag-Mannesmann-BoehlerDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1972
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.