Legal Opinion

Carlisle v. Kelly Pile & Foundation Corp.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Decided March 31, 1948No. Civil Action No. 6380PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BARD, District Judge.

Upon consideration of the additional authorities cited by counsel for the defendant at the reargument on defendant’s motion, to dismiss the complaint on the ground that venue of the present action is improperly laid in this district, I am persuaded that my previous opinion, 72 F.Supp. 326, denying defendant’s motion to dismiss, is inconsonant with the principles expressed by Judge Biggs, speaking for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Dehne v. Hillman Inv. Co., 3 Cir. 110 F.2d 456. Inasmuch as the tort which is alleged as the basis for this action did not occur • in…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Dehne v. Hillman Investment Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1940
  2. Carlisle v. Kelly Pile & Foundation Corp.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1947

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Herpst v. S. B. I. Liquidating Corp.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1968
  2. McGrath v. Lund's Fisheries, Inc.District Court, D. Delaware · 1959
  3. Carlisle v. S. C. Loveland Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1948

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API