Legal Opinion
Pine Co. v. McConnell
New York Court of Appeals
Decided June 4, 1948PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] Personal jurisdiction of defendants was properly obtained by substituted service under section 229-b of the Civil Practice Act. Defendants' local activities amply satisfied the long-recognized test of what constitutes engaging in business, as laid down in the decisions of this court. (See, e.g., Chaplin v. Selznick, 293 N.Y. 529, 534; Tauza v. Susquehanna CoalCo., 220 N.Y. 259.) It is unnecessary, at this time, to say whether and to what extent that test may be…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Tauza v. . Susquehanna Coal Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1917
- Chaplin v. SelznickNew York Court of Appeals · 1944
3Cited by14 opinions
- Simonson v. International BankNew York Court of Appeals · 1964
- Sterling Novelty Corp. v. Frank & Hirsch Distributing Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1949
- Jaftex Corp. v. Randolph Mills, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1960
- Hastings v. Piper Aircraft Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1948
- Benware v. Acme Chemical Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1954
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.