Legal Opinion

Chambers v. Blickle

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided January 7, 1963No. 182, Docket 27824PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Per curiam

This civil action in which jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship, the amount in controversy exclusive of interest and costs exceeding $10,-000, was dismissed because “The allegations of the complaint do not assert the essential factual elements necessary to effect service under the Connecticut civil process statute, Sec. 52-59 (a) against non-resident defendants.” This we hold to be error. No such requirement of pleading in the complaint of the basis for substituted service is found in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and would, we think, depart from the spirit of Rule 8(a).…

2Cited by2 opinions

  1. Stirling Homex Corporation v. Homasote CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1971
  2. Gordon P. Chambers, Receiver of Bradford Motors, Inc. v. Charles R. BlickleCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1963

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

Powered by the Exa API