Opinion · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Carlisle v. Kelly Pile & Foundation Corp.

Carlisle v. Kelly Pile & Found. Corp., 77 F. Supp. 51 (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1948)

Type
Opinion
Court
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction
Pennsylvania
Date
1948-03-31
Topic
litigation

BARD, District Judge. Upon consideration of the additional authorities cited by counsel for the defendant at the reargument on defendant’s motion, to dismiss the complaint on the ground that venue of the present action is improperly laid in this district, I am persuaded that my previous opinion, 72 F.Supp. 326, denying defendant’s motion to dismiss, is inconsonant with the principles expressed by Judge Biggs, speaking for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Dehne v. Hillman Inv. Co., 3 Cir. 110 F.2d 456. Inasmuch as the tort which is alleged as the basis for this action did not occur • in Pennsylvania, I think that under the Dehne decision I am bound to grant the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Carlisle v. Kelly Pile & Foundation Corp.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
Cited by
3 opinions
CARLISLE v. KELLY PILE FOUNDATION CORPORATION, (E.D.Pa. 1948)
77 F. Supp. 51
CARLISLE v. KELLY PILE FOUNDATION CORPORATION.
Civil Action No. 6380.
United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.
March 31, 1948.
On reargument of defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint.

Motion granted.

For former opinion, see72 F. Supp. 326.

See also77 F. Supp. 51.
William M. Alper, of Freedman, Landy Lorry, all of Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.

Richard A. Smith, of Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.
BARD, District Judge.
Upon consideration of the additional authorities cited by counsel for the defendant at the reargument on defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that venue of the present action is improperly laid in this district, I am persuaded that my previous opinion,72 F. Supp. 326, denying defendant's motion to dismiss, is inconsonant with the principles expressed by Judge Biggs, speaking for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Dehne v. Hillman Inv. Co., 3 Cir.110 F.2d 456. Inasmuch as the tort which is alleged as the basis for this action did not occur in Pennsylvania, I think that under the Dehne decision I am bound to grant the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint.

An order may be entered accordingly.