Legal Opinion

Copperweld Steel Co. v. Demag-Mannesmann-Boehler

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

Decided August 16, 1972No. Civ. A. 71-920PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM and ORDER

McCUNE, District Judge.

Following our memorandum opinion of March 13, 1972, 54 F.R.D. 539, the defendant filed a motion for reconsideration of a portion of it. We decided then that the enforcement of a forum selection provision depended on the reasonableness of the provision under the facts of the particular case citing Central Contracting Co. v. C. E. Youngdahl & Co., 418 Pa. 122, 209 A.2d 810 (1965) and Central Contracting Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co., 367 F.2d 341 (3d Cir. 1966). We held that a clause encompassed in “General Conditions for the Export of Machinery” which…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1972
  2. Central Contracting Co. v. C. E. Youngdahl & Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1965
  3. Copperweld Steel Co. v. Demag-Mannesmann-BoehlerDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1972

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Copperweld Steel Company, in No. 77-1493 v. Demag-Mannesmann-Bohler, Demag Stranggiess-Technik Gmbh, Demag Aktiengesellschaft, in No. 77-1494Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1978
  2. Morse Electro Products Corp. v. S. S. Great PeaceDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1977
  3. Hoes of America, Inc. v. HoesDistrict Court, C.D. Illinois · 1979
  4. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. Travelers Indemnity Co.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1975
  5. Copperweld Steel Co. v. Demag-Mannesmann-BoehlerDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1973

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

Powered by the Exa API