Legal Opinion
Murphy v. Hudson & Manhattan R.
District Court, E.D. New York
Decided June 20, 1942No. 2704PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MOSCOWITZ, District Judge.
This is a motion to dismiss the complaint because of lack of the requisite diversity of citizenship upon which jurisdiction is based. Plaintiffs are citizens of the State of New York and were injured in New Jersey allegedly because of the negligence of defendant. Defendant is incorporated in New Jersey and is also voluntarily incorporated in New .York.
In opposition to this motion, plaintiffs rely on Boston & M. R. R. v. Hurd, 1 Cir., 108 F. 116, 56 L.R.A. 193, and Muller v. Boston & M. R. R., D.C., 9 F.Supp. 802. Each of those cases presented instances of defendants…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Boston & M. R. R. v. HurdCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1901
- Patch v. Wabash RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1907
- Goodwin v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1903
- Boston &. M. R. R. v. BreslinCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1935
- Peterborough R. R. v. Boston & M. R. R.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1917
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Gavin v. Hudson & Manhattan R. Co. Knoblock v. Hudson & Manhattan R. Co. Emma v. Hudson & Manhattan R. CoCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1950
- Fitzgerald v. Southern Railway CompanyDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1959
- Gavin v. Hudson & Manhattan R.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1950