Legal Opinion
Fowble v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided November 11, 1926PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
GODDARD, District Judge.
The defendant has appeared specially and moved to set aside the service of the summons and complaint on two grounds. It seems necessary, however, to discuss the first ground only, which is: “That the defendant is a foreign corporation, and is not doing business in the state of New York, and that therefor said attempted service was in violation of the Constitution of the United States, particularly section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
The following facts appear from the moving papers and affidavits: The defendant, the Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, *505is a…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Green v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1907
- Riverside & Dan River Cotton Mills v. MenefeeSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
- Pomeroy v. Hocking Valley Railway Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1916
- Toledo Railways & Light Co. v. HillSupreme Court of the United States · 1917
- Case v. Smith, Lineaweaver & Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern New York · 1907
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2000
- Zimmers v. Dodge BrothersDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1927
- Kilpatrick v. Texas & P. Ry. Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1947
- Kaffenberger v. KremerDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1945
- Wilson v. McKinney Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1932
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.