Legal Opinion
Great Lakes Transit Corporation v. Marceau
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided March 28, 1946No. 191PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
FRANK, Circuit Judge.
1. The Court below found that the parties to the Levisohn-IIeirich retainer intended that any action on the claim should be brought in New York. The compensation proceedings could have been instituted nowhere else, and the Transit Corporation’s principal office is located there. Levisohn’s testimony as to where ihe parties contemplated the bringing of the action is so equivocal that the finding by the trial judge, who heard the testimony on that point, does not appear to us to have been “clearly erroneous.”
If we assume that State law governs, pursuant to Dickinson v.…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Garrett v. Moore-Mccormack Co., Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1943
- Kulukundis Shipping Co. v. Amtorg Trading Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1942
- United States v. FornessCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1942
- Ricketts v. Pennsylvania R. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1946
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Phillips Petroleum Co. v. AdamsCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1975
- Equifax, Inc. v. LusterDistrict Court, E.D. Arkansas · 1978
- American Metrocomm Corp. v. Duane Morris & Heckscher LLP (In Re American Metrocomm Corp.)United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Delaware · 2002
- Mason v. RoseCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1949
- Amoco Transport Co. v. Dietze, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1984
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.