Legal Opinion
Isbrandtsen-Moller Co. v. United States
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided April 8, 1936PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
CHASE, Circuit Judge (after stating the facts as above).
The service upon the defendants who have appeared specially was not made within the Southern District of New York, but instead within the District of Columbia. That is the real ground of the motion to quash. But it is clear that this court has jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the cause of action and that as the complainant resides within the Southern District of New York the venue is in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.A. § 43. And section 44 of the same title provides that in cases of the class in which this one falls…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- A. L. A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
- Panama Refining Co. v. RyanSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
- United States v. Chemical Foundation, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Humphrey's v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
- Stafford v. WallaceSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Isbrandtsen-Moller Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1937
- Montship Lines, Limited v. Federal Maritime Board and the United States of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1961
- Brown v. HeymannSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1972
- Opinion of the JusticesSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1950
- Plan for Abolition of CouncilNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2012
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.