Legal Opinion
Burbank v. Grant
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided September 8, 1972No. Civ. A. No. 72-481PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
VAN ARTSDALEN, District Judge.
The defendant has moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 12, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or in the alternative to transfer the action to the Western District of Pennsylvania. The defendant does not specify whether his motion to dismiss is based on Rule 12(b)(3)—improper venue; or Rule 12(b)(2)—lack of jurisdiction over the person. The answer filed asserts that “[tjhere is no jurisdiction or venue in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,” and, therefore, both venue and jurisdiction over the person will be considered.
The…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Olberding v. Illinois Central RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1953
- McCoy v. SilerCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1953
- Williams Et Ux. v. MeredithSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
- Giffin v. EnsignCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1956
- McCall v. GatesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1946
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Torres v. TorresDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1985
- Amos v. Robinson, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County1976
- Roberts v. Pevar ex rel. PevarSupreme Court of Delaware · 1975