Legal Opinion
Gorso v. Bell Equipment Corporation
District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Decided June 7, 1974No. Civ. A. 68-1356, 69-20, 69-21, 69-23, 70-1164, 70-1177 and 71-223PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
JOHN L. MILLER, District Judge.
Now pending before the Court are the third-party defendants’ motions to dis miss the third party complaint for lack of jurisdiction over the person, insufficiency of process and insufficiency of service of process. A brief statement of the background of this litigation is necessary to our disposition of the motions.
The plaintiffs filed their respective complaints in diversity actions for personal injuries and in the case of The Marley Company for property and consequential damages they sustained when a Pignon Crane collapsed at a construction site near…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- McGee v. International Life InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1952
- Iowa Central Railway Co. v. IowaSupreme Court of the United States · 1896
- Puget Sound Power & Light Co. v. SeattleSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Max Daetwyler Corp., a New York Corporation v. R. Meyer, a West German Corporation. Appeal of Rolf MeyerCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1985
- Columbia Metal Culvert Co. v. Kaiser Industries Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1975
- Trachtman v. T. M. S. Realty & Financial ServicesDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1975
- Novinger v. E. I. DuPont deNemours & Co.District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1981
- Max Daetwyler Corp., a New York Corporation v. R. Meyer, a West German Corporation. Appeal of Rolf MeyerCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1985