Legal Opinion
Scott v. Pennsylvania R.
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided February 1, 1949No. 8878PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
McGRANERY, District Judge.
This is a negligence action based upon an allegedly premature start of a train. Defendant has moved to dismiss on two grounds; lack of diversity of citizenship and lack of jurisdictional amount. Defendant’s motion is supported by a deposition of plaintiff and an affidavit. Plaintiff has filed an answer to the motion supported by an affidavit by the attorney who represented plaintiff at the deposition.
Rule 12(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., provides that a defense such as this one “shall be heard and determined before trial on application of…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Saint Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Wilderman v. RothCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1927
- Greene v. KeimDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1948
- Tlusty v. Gillespie-Rogers-Pyatt Co.District Court, E.D. New York · 1940
3Cited by2 opinions
- Cohen v. Proctor & Gamble Distributing Co.District Court, D. Delaware · 1954
- Scott v. Pennsylvania R.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1949