Legal Opinion
Tosco Corp. v. Communities for a Better Environment
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided January 2, 2001No. 99-55400PublishedCited by 210 opinions
1Per curiam
Tosco Corporation (“Tosco”) claims that the district court has diversity jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because, under the “nerve *497center” test, its principal place of business is Connecticut. But we apply the “place of operations” test when a corporation conducts a substantial predominance of its business activities within a state. See Industrial Tectonics, Inc. v. Aero Alloy, 912 F.2d 1090, 1094 (9th Cir.1990); see also Montrose Chem. Corp. v. American Motorists Insur. Co., 117 F.3d 1128, 1135 (9th Cir.1997) (district court abused its discretion in sanctioning law firm…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Industrial Tectonics, Inc. v. Aero Alloy, a California Corporation Die Cast Products, Inc., a California Corporation, AKA Metal Products GroupCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1990
- Smith v. McCulloughSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
- J.A. Olson Company v. City of Winona, MississippiCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1987
- Inland Rubber Corporation v. Triple a Tire Service, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1963
- Montrose Chemical Corporation Of California v. American Motorists Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1997
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by210 opinions
- Hertz Corp. v. FriendSupreme Court of the United States · 2010
- Emma C. Lively v. Wild Oats Markets, Inc., a Delaware CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2006
- Kingman Reef Atoll Investments, L.L.C. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008
- Korn v. Polo Ralph Lauren Corp.District Court, E.D. California · 2008
- Klamath Tribe Claims Committee v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2011
205 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.