Techno Corp. v. Dahl Associates, Inc.
District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
WEBER, Chief Judge.
I
Defendants in this action have moved to dismiss for want of jurisdiction, alleging the want of proof that either the corporation defendant or the individual defendants did business in Pennsylvania. Defendant corporation was organized under the laws of New Jersey and has its principal office there. The individual defendants are citizens and residents of New Jersey, and are principals and corporate officers of the corporate defendant.
The counsel for Defendants withdrew the motion to dismiss with respect to the corpo rate defendant, admitting the long-arm jurisdiction…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Glazer v. ChandlerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1964
- Eleanor Roseman v. Indiana University of Pennsylvania, at IndianaCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1975
- Donner v. Tams-Witmark Music Library, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1979
- Miller v. American Telephone & Telegraph CompanyDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1975
- Popkin v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1966
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Columbia Briargate Company, a Limited Partnership v. First National Bank in Dallas Vaughn Pearson and A.S. Kyzer, Jr.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1983
- Hough/Loew Associates, Inc. v. CLX Realty Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1991
- Bowers v. NETI Technologies, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1988
- Bucks County Playhouse v. BradshawDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1983
- PSC Professional Services Group, Inc. v. American Digital Systems, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1983
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.