Legal Opinion
Intermatic, Inc. v. Taymac Corp.
District Court, S.D. Indiana
Decided March 3, 1993No. IP 92-1059-CPublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION
McKINNEY, District Judge.
Defendants Michael Shotey (“Shotey”) and F. William Baetzel (“Baetzel”) have both filed motions requesting dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction. Intermatic Incorporated (“Intermatic”), Shotey, and Baetzel have filed their briefs and the issues are ready to be resolved. For the reasons discussed below, this Court DENIES Shotey’s motion to dismiss and GRANTS Baetzel’s motion to dismiss.
I. FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Intermatic is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in…
2Cases cited41 opinions
- Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Helicopteros Nacionales De Colombia, S. A. v. HallSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Calder v. JonesSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Andersen v. Sportmart, Inc.District Court, N.D. Indiana · 1998
- Goehring v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
- International Medical Group, Inc. v. American Arbitration Ass'nDistrict Court, S.D. Indiana · 2001
- Charlesworth v. Marco Manufacturing Co.District Court, N.D. Indiana · 1995
- L.H. Carbide Corp. v. Piece Maker Co.District Court, N.D. Indiana · 1994
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.