Legal Opinion
Delahanty v. Hinckley
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided July 3, 1986No. Civ. A. 82-409, 82-490, 82-549 and 82-866PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
JOHN GARRETT PENN, District Judge.
The Court has filed an order dismissing the actions against RG Industries, Inc. and ROEHM GmbH. In this memorandum, the Court briefly sets forth the grounds for its order.
I
Plaintiff bears the burden of proving facts sufficient to support jurisdiction. McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 182, 56 S.Ct. 780-82, 80 L.Ed. 1135 (1936). Where a defendant’s challenge to the facts initially set forth by the plaintiff raise a genuine issue of fact, then the Court may hold an evidentiary hearing. Plaintiffs must then establish facts which…
2Cases cited52 opinions
- International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. WoodsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Hanson v. DencklaSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
- Gulf Oil Corp. v. GilbertSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1936
47 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- City of New York v. A-1 Jewelry & Pawn, Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 2007
- Wasylow v. Glock, Inc.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1996
- City of New York v. A-1 Jewelry & Pawn, Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 2007
- Burman v. Phoenix Worldwide Industries, Inc.District Court, District of Columbia · 2006
- Fogle v. Ramsey Winch Co., Inc.District Court, District of Columbia · 1991
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.