Legal Opinion
Crumrine v. NEG MICON USA, INC.
District Court, N.D. Iowa
Decided July 17, 2000No. C98-3046-MWBPublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ RENEWED MOTION TO DETERMINE PROPER VENUE FOR TRIAL
BENNETT, Chief Judge.
Where an action may be tried is no trivial question, as proper venue is a component of the due process requirement of “ ‘[a] fair trial in a fair tribunal.’ ” See Holt v. Virginia, 381 U.S. 131, 136, 86 S.Ct. 1376, 14 L.Ed.2d 290 (1965) (quoting In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136, 76 S.Ct. 623, 99 L.Ed. 942 (1955)). The defendants in this diversity action, which was removed to federal court, assert that venue is not proper in one division of this federal judicial district,…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- In Re Murchison.Supreme Court of the United States · 1955
- Lambert Run Coal Co. v. Baltimore & Ohio RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
- Arizona v. ManypennySupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- George Lambert, D/B/A Rainbow Fruit v. Sam Kysar and Joan Kysar, D/B/A Lewis River Tree FarmCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1993
- Freeman v. Bee MacHine Co., IncSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Harrington v. WilberDistrict Court, S.D. Iowa · 2005
- Borghi v. Purple Group, Inc.District Court, Virgin Islands · 2009
- Garrett v. HansonDistrict Court, E.D. Texas · 2019
- Hammers v. Mayea-ChangDistrict Court, E.D. Texas · 2019
- Hollis v. Florida State University Ex Rel. Board of RegentsCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2001
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.