The defendant, a resident of Wisconsin, was engaged in the business of selling appliances and sent one of his employees to deliver a gas cooking stove to the plaintiff in Illinois. Claiming that the employee had negligently injured him in unloading the stove, the plaintiff brought action in Illinois, seeking damages of $7,500. A summons was personally served on the defendant in Wisconsin, and the defendant appeared specially, moving to quash the summons on the ground that the Illinois statute, providing for extraterritorial service on any person who commits a tortious act within the state, contravened the constitutions of the United States and Illinois. The lower court granted the motion quashing the service of summons. On appeal, held, rev...
Defendant issued a liability insurance policy to the manufacturer of a hair-waving product, an Illin...
Conflict of Laws--Torts--Lex Loci Delicti Is Proper Law When Parties Are Domiciled in Different Juri...
The United States Supreme Court held that Procedural Due Process does not entitle an owner of proper...
The defendant, a resident of Wisconsin, was engaged in the business of selling appliances and sent o...
Peninsular Gas Company, a Michigan corporation, brought an action in Missouri against the plaintiff ...
The United States Supreme Court has held that a state\u27s assertion of quasi in rem jurisdiction ov...
Defendant, a resident of Utah, sued petitioner, a resident of California, to recover construction co...
The plaintiff, a nonresident of Ohio, brought an action in Ohio against the defendant, a sociedad an...
Petitioner was injured in the course of employment with respondent, an interstate railroad, in Ben H...
In the recent case of United States v. Dotterweich the United States Supreme Court (four justices di...
Defendant, an alien, against whom an order of deportation had been entered in 1930 by reason of his ...
An Illinois corporation brought suit based on diversity of citizenship in a United States district c...
Plaintiff brought a derivative suit against the defendant, a Delaware corporation, in a United State...
Plaintiff, a Georgia corporation not qualified to do business in Florida, solicited orders for merch...
Plaintiffs, reciprocal insurance associations which insure against fire and related risks, and whose...
Defendant issued a liability insurance policy to the manufacturer of a hair-waving product, an Illin...
Conflict of Laws--Torts--Lex Loci Delicti Is Proper Law When Parties Are Domiciled in Different Juri...
The United States Supreme Court held that Procedural Due Process does not entitle an owner of proper...
The defendant, a resident of Wisconsin, was engaged in the business of selling appliances and sent o...
Peninsular Gas Company, a Michigan corporation, brought an action in Missouri against the plaintiff ...
The United States Supreme Court has held that a state\u27s assertion of quasi in rem jurisdiction ov...
Defendant, a resident of Utah, sued petitioner, a resident of California, to recover construction co...
The plaintiff, a nonresident of Ohio, brought an action in Ohio against the defendant, a sociedad an...
Petitioner was injured in the course of employment with respondent, an interstate railroad, in Ben H...
In the recent case of United States v. Dotterweich the United States Supreme Court (four justices di...
Defendant, an alien, against whom an order of deportation had been entered in 1930 by reason of his ...
An Illinois corporation brought suit based on diversity of citizenship in a United States district c...
Plaintiff brought a derivative suit against the defendant, a Delaware corporation, in a United State...
Plaintiff, a Georgia corporation not qualified to do business in Florida, solicited orders for merch...
Plaintiffs, reciprocal insurance associations which insure against fire and related risks, and whose...
Defendant issued a liability insurance policy to the manufacturer of a hair-waving product, an Illin...
Conflict of Laws--Torts--Lex Loci Delicti Is Proper Law When Parties Are Domiciled in Different Juri...
The United States Supreme Court held that Procedural Due Process does not entitle an owner of proper...