Legal Opinion
Hedrick v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co.
District Court, S.D. Ohio
Decided June 19, 1939No. 48PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
NEVIN, District Judge.
On February 14, 1939, plaintiff filed a complaint for damages for personal injuries. On March 4, 1939, defendant, without entering its appearance and appearing solely for the purpose of the motion, filed a motion praying the court “to dismiss this action or in lieu thereof to quash the return of service of summons herein on the ground that the defendant is a corporation organized under the Statutes of the Dominion of Canada and was not and is not subject to service of process within the Southern District of Ohio, and this Court has no jurisdiction over the person of the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Mechanical Appliance Co. v. CastlemanSupreme Court of the United States · 1910
- Maxfield v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1934
- McNeal-Edwards Co. v. Frank L. Young Co.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1930
- American Laundry MacHinery Co. v. C. B. & Q. R. R.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1931
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Partin v. Michaels Art Bronze Co., IncCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1953
- Kenny v. Alaska Airlines, Inc.District Court, S.D. California · 1955
- Ackerley v. Commercial Credit Co.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1953
- Hinchcliffe Motors, Inc. v. Willys-Overland Motors, Inc.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1939
- Anderson v. British Overseas Airways Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1956
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.