Legal Opinion
Jacks v. Torrington Company
District Court, D. South Carolina
Decided July 21, 1966No. Civ. A. 66-115PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HEMPHILL, District Judge.
The interesting chronology of events is here complemented by the proposed change in the pleading. After defendants had attacked the original complaint in petition for removal and motions plaintiffs, for the first time, seek to amend. This court expressed its purpose to allow the amendment under Rule 15(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs have not questioned right of removal, based on proper jurisdiction, existed if plaintiffs had sued Torrington alone. Plaintiff contended, however, the original complaint alleged against joint tort feasors. The court first…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Hazel Bishop, Inc. v. Perfemme, Inc. And Hazel BishopCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1963
- Brown v. Eastern States CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1950
- Piper v. American Fidelity & Casualty Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1930
- Clarke v. CITY OF GREERSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1957
- Toadvine v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co.District Court, E.D. Kentucky · 1937
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Heniford v. American Motors Sales Corp.District Court, D. South Carolina · 1979
- Newman v. Forward Lands, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1976
- Nosonowitz v. Allegheny Beverage Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1978
- Skinner v. American Oil Co.District Court, S.D. Iowa · 1979
- Winner's Circle of Las Vegas, Inc. v. AMI Franchising, Inc.District Court, D. Nevada · 1996
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.