Legal Opinion
Eldridge v. Richfield Oil Corporation
District Court, S.D. California
Decided November 18, 1965No. Civ. A. 64-1389-IHPublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
IRVING HILL, District Judge.
The Court must and does grant Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the instant action for lack of diversity. In so doing, I recognize that injustice may result, i. e. that Plaintiff may now be without a remedy for serious personal injuries. A brief summary of the facts which led to this unhappy result is in order.
It appears from the Complaint and the Pre-Trial Order that Plaintiff was an employee of a contract carrier engaged in hauling petroleum products in tank trucks. He alleges that on July 20, 1964, his employer was hired to carry a load of octane blending compound,…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Guaranty Trust Co. v. YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Land v. DollarSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- American Fire & Casualty Co. v. FinnSupreme Court of the United States · 1951
- Kline v. Burke Construction Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1922
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Knee v. Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1968
- Donald W. Eldridge v. Richfield Oil Corporation, a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1966
- Ozel Conley v. Robert E. DauerCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1972
- Ozel Conley v. Robert E. DauerCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1972