Legal Opinion

Miller v. Tulsa Petroleum Co.

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

Decided December 22, 1953No. Civ. A. No. 4521PublishedCited by 6 opinions

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

  1. Philadelphia & Reading Railway Co. v. McKibbinSupreme Court of the United States · 1917
  2. Conley v. Mathieson Alkali WorksSupreme Court of the United States · 1903
  3. Shambe v. Delaware Hudson R. R. Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
  4. Partin v. Michaels Art Bronze Co., IncCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1953
  5. Lutz v. Foster & Kester Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1951

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Kenny v. Alaska Airlines, Inc.District Court, S.D. California · 1955
  2. In Re Puerto Rico Air Disaster LitigationDistrict Court, D. Puerto Rico · 1972
  3. Federal Home Loan Bank v. Long Beach Federal Savings & Loan Ass'nDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1954
  4. Strick Corp. v. Cravens Homalloy (Sheffield) Ltd.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1972
  5. Zweifach v. SCRANTON LACE COMPANYDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1957

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API