Legal Opinion
Ackert v. Ausman
New York Supreme Court
Decided May 23, 1961PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBirdie Amsterdam, J.
The defendant Investors Mutual, Inc. (hereinafter called “Mutual”) appears specially herein and moves for an order, pursuant to section 237-a of the Civil Practice Act, to set aside the service upon it of the summons and complaint herein. The motion is predicated upon the ground that Mutual is a foreign corporation not doing business and not qualified to do business in New York. The service was made on April 1,1961 on Mutual’s director, Charles T.Treland, Jr. It is undisputed that the service on Mr. Ireland complied with section 229 of the Civil Practice Act. The decisive issue on this motion…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Hanson v. DencklaSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
- McGee v. International Life InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1952
- Tauza v. . Susquehanna Coal Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1917
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Kenny v. George A. Fuller Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1982
- Ackert v. AusmanDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1961
- Time Warner City Cable v. Adelphi UniversityAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2006
- Ackert v. AusmanNew York Supreme Court · 1961
- Bush v. Stern Bros. & Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1981
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.