Legal Opinion
Leyden v. Excello Corporation
District Court, D. New Jersey
Decided November 4, 1960No. Civ. A. 1143-59PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HARTSHORNE, District Judge.
This negligence action was filed in this Court more than two years, but less than three years, since the accident. The action is therefore barred by the New Jersey Statute of Limitations, N.J. S.A. 2A:14-2, but not by the New York Statute, Civil Practice Act, § 49. Defendants Excello (a Michigan corporation authorized to do business in New Jersey) and Gottemoller (a New Jersey resident) accordingly filed a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff thereafter noticed a motion to transfer the cause under Title 28 U.S.C.A. § 1404(a) to the Southern District of New York,…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Bolten v. General Motors CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1950
- Ferguson v. Ford Motor Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1950
- Glasfloss Corp. v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1950
- Bolten v. General Motors CorporationDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1949
- Thompson Products v. Pennsylvania Railroad CompanyDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1955
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Shutte v. Armco Steel Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1970
- Rappoport v. Steven Spielberg, Inc.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1998
- Schreiber v. Allis-Chalmers Corp.District Court, D. Kansas · 1978
- Roberts Brothers, Inc. v. Kurtz Bros.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1964
- Siemens Aktiengesellschaft v. Sonotone CorporationDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1973
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.