Miller v. Tulsa Petroleum Co.
District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
MURPHY, District Judge.
Tulsa Oil Company, a New Jersey corporation, and Tulsa Petroleum Company, a Delaware corporation, move to dismiss plaintiff’s action; the former alleging it was not subject to or properly served with process in this district; 1 the latter, failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
In disposing of such a motion we must consider as true all well plead allegations of the complaint including the exhibits; but not conclusions of law or unwarranted deductions of fact; viewing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, resolving all doubts in favor of…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Philadelphia & Reading Railway Co. v. McKibbinSupreme Court of the United States · 1917
- Conley v. Mathieson Alkali WorksSupreme Court of the United States · 1903
- Shambe v. Delaware Hudson R. R. Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
- Partin v. Michaels Art Bronze Co., IncCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1953
- Lutz v. Foster & Kester Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1951
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Kenny v. Alaska Airlines, Inc.District Court, S.D. California · 1955
- In Re Puerto Rico Air Disaster LitigationDistrict Court, D. Puerto Rico · 1972
- Federal Home Loan Bank v. Long Beach Federal Savings & Loan Ass'nDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1954
- Strick Corp. v. Cravens Homalloy (Sheffield) Ltd.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1972
- Zweifach v. SCRANTON LACE COMPANYDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1957
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.