Ratledge v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.
District Court, E.D. Tennessee
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
CURTIS L. COLLIER, District Judge.
Before the Court is Defendant Bull Moose Tube Company’s (“Bull Moose”) motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (Court File No. 22). Plaintiff George Rat-ledge (“Plaintiff’) responded to Bull Moose’s motion (Court File No. 34), and Bull Moose replied to Plaintiffs response (Court File No. 38). Bull Moose argues the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over it because, although it maintains contacts with Tennessee, the injury in this case occurred outside the State of Tennessee. Bull Moose seeks dismissal on subject-matter jurisdiction grounds as…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Burger King Corp. v. RudzewiczSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Helicopteros Nacionales De Colombia, S. A. v. HallSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Stewart Organization, Inc. v. Ricoh Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Southern MacHine Company, Inc. v. Mohasco Industries, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1968
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.