Legal Opinion

Barber v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided July 1, 1983No. 139PublishedCited by 24 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MONTGOMERY, Judge:

The instant appeal arises from the lower court’s denial of preliminary objections which challenged the in personam jurisdiction of the Pennsylvania courts over a foreign corporation named as a defendant in the action. After denying the preliminary objections, the trial court certified, pursuant to Rule 311(b)(2) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, that a substantial issue of jurisdiction was presented, and the matter is therefore properly before us for resolution at this time. The issues involved have been the subject of thorough briefs, and oral argument was…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
  2. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. WoodsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  3. Hanson v. DencklaSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
  4. Cannon Manufacturing Co. v. Cudahy Packing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1925
  5. Proctor & Schwartz, Inc. v. Cleveland Lumber Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1974

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by24 opinions

  1. Ambrose v. Cross Creek CondominiumsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
  2. Culbreth v. Amosa (PTY) Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1990
  3. Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. MaynardWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1993
  4. Kenneth H. Oaks, Ltd. v. JosephsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
  5. Slota v. Moorings, Ltd.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985

19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API