Legal Opinion

Lauritzen v. Atlantic Greyhound Corp.

District Court, E.D. Tennessee

Decided June 14, 1948No. Civil Action No. 942PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

TAYLOR, District Judge.

Following an order granting a new trial, plaintiffs amended their complaint by setting out additional statutory provisions relating to operation of motor vehicles on highways of the State of Tennessee. Defendant now moves for summary judgment in its favor, dismissing the amended complaint, or in the alternative adjudging and decreeing that the relief sought therein is barred by Tennessee statute, for the reason that the amended action was not commenced within the applicable one-year period of limitation.

The original action was commenced to recover for the death of a son…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Hickman v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
  2. United States v. Memphis Cotton Oil Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1933
  3. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad v. KinneySupreme Court of the United States · 1922
  4. Friederichsen v. RenardSupreme Court of the United States · 1918
  5. International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union v. Donnelly Garment Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1941

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Carol Gagne FUSCO, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Defendant, AppellantCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1993
  2. Karash v. PigottTennessee Supreme Court · 1975
  3. Atlantic Greyhound Corporation v. LauritzenCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1950
  4. Venn v. Tennessean Newspapers, Inc.District Court, M.D. Tennessee · 1962
  5. Runions v. Norfolk & Western Railway Co.Roanoke County Circuit Court · 2000

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API