Legal Opinion
Fannin v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co.
District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Decided April 5, 1962No. Civ. A. No. 61-775PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WILLSON, District Judge.
In this diversity action the defendant, Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company (hereinafter referred to as C & 0) has filed a motion'to dismiss the complaint and for summary judgment in its favor. It assigns three reasons:
1. This Court lacks jurisdiction over the C & 0.
2. This Court lacks venue under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1391 because plaintiff, Joseph Norman Fannin, is admittedly a citizen of Kentucky and plaintiff, Bituminous Casualty Corporation, is a citizen of Illinois, and neither of the defendants are residents or citizens of this judicial district.
3. The Court does not…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1952
- Green v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1907
- Olberding v. Illinois Central RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1953
- Rufo v. the Bastian-Blessing Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1961
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Amercoat Corp. v. Reagent Chem. & Research Inc.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1970
- Glaser v. Pennsylvania RRNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1963
- Gearhart v. PulakosDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1962