Cheltenham Supply Corp. v. Consolidated Rail Corp.
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
GILES, District Judge.
Before me is a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction filed by defendant Artwalt Corporation d/b/a Glenwood Warehouse (“Artwalt”). Plaintiff, Cheltenham Supply Corporation, instituted this suit against defendant Consolidated Rail Corporation (“Conrail”) to recover damages for loss of eighty-three bales of film scrap. Plaintiff ordered the film scrap from the shipper, Hercules, Inc., and Conrail, as delivering carrier, was to deliver it to Glenwood Warehouse in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Plaintiff asserts two alternative theories of recovery in its amended…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- United Mine Workers of America v. GibbsSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. KrogerSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Aldinger v. HowardSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Leather's Best, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross v. S.S. Mormaclynx, Defendants-Appellants-AppelleesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1971
- Graziani v. Committee on Legal EthicsSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Jose Denis Rodriguez v. Juan ComasCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1989
- Chas. Kurz Co. v. LombardiDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1984
- Lovell Manufacturing v. Export-Import Bank of the United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1988
- Lovell Manufacturing v. Export-Import Bank Of The United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1988
- International Molders & Allied Workers v. United Foundries, Inc.District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1986
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.