Austad v. United States Steel Corp.
District Court, N.D. California
1Opinion of the Court
EDWARD P. MURPHY, District Judge.
These are motions by defendant Inland Steel Company to quash purported service of summons, and to dismiss for lack of venue and jurisdiction in the above companion cases.
The Motion To Quash Purported Service Of Summons
Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(d) (3), 28 U.S.C., provides that service on a foreign corporation may be made on
“ * * * an officer, a managing or general agent, or to any other agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process * * *.”
Inland Steel Company is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois. It is…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Eastman Kodak Co. v. Southern Photo Materials Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1927
- Cannon Manufacturing Co. v. Cudahy Packing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1925
- United States v. Scophony Corp. of AmericaSupreme Court of the United States · 1948
- Earl W. Green v. U. S. Chewing Gum Mfg. Co., and H. L. WilkinsonCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1955
- Becker v. AngleCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1947
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Robert Fred Swearngin v. Sears Roebuck & Company, a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1967
- Wentling v. Popular Science Publishing CompanyDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1959
- King v. VescoDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1972
- Bruner v. Republic Acceptance CorporationDistrict Court, E.D. Arkansas · 1961
- Athletes Foot of Delaware, Inc. v. Ralph Libonati Co.District Court, D. Delaware · 1977
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.