Legal Opinion

Massaro v. Fisk Rubber Corporation

District Court, D. Massachusetts

Decided January 10, 1941No. 640 Civ. APublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BREWSTER, District Judge.

In this action defendants have filed motions to dismiss. Of the grounds specified in the motions, only two are now relied upon. They are (1) that the court should not retain jurisdiction to determine the issues raised by the complaint, and (2) that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

The argument advanced in support of the first ground is that inasmuch as the plaintiff attacks as invalid a sale of all the assets of the defendant Fisk Rubber Company (hereinafter referred to as “Fisk”), a Delaware corporation, which has consummated the…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Allied Chemical & Dye Corp. v. Steel & Tube Co. of AmericaCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1923
  2. Hutchinson v. Fidelity Inv. Ass'nCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1939
  3. Allaun v. Consolidated Oil Co.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1929
  4. Pelelas v. Caterpillar Tractor Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1940
  5. Alabama Independent Service Station Ass'n v. Shell Petroleum Corp.District Court, N.D. Alabama · 1939

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Ramos Mimoso v. PuebloSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1947
  2. Canuel v. OskoianDistrict Court, D. Rhode Island · 1959
  3. Eastman Kodak Co. v. McAuleyDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1941
  4. Daugherty v. BallDistrict Court, C.D. California · 1967
  5. Ellis v. StevensDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1941

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API