1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.Supp.
  4. 376 F.Supp.
  5. 376 F.Supp. 1027 (1974)
 

GORSO v. BELL EQUIPMENT CORPORATION

Civ. A. Nos. 68-1356, 69-20, 69-21, 69-23, 70-1164, 70-1177 and 71-223.

376 F.Supp. 1027 (1974)

James A. GORSO, Plaintiff, v. BELL EQUIPMENT CORPORATION, a corporation, Defendant, v. The MARLEY COMPANY, a corporation, et al., Third-Party Defendants. Jack CHICONELLA, Plaintiff, v. BELL EQUIPMENT CORPORATION, a corporation, Defendant. v. The MARLEY COMPANY, a corporation, et al., Third-Party Defendants. Clyde A. TEVIS, Plaintiff, v. BELL EQUIPMENT CORPORATION, a corporation, Defendant, v. The MARLEY COMPANY, a corporation, et al., Third-Party Defendants. Harry J. PHILLIPS, Plaintiff, v. BELL EQUIPMENT CORPORATION, a corporation, Defendant, v. The MARLEY COMPANY, a corporation, et al., Third-Party Defendants. Richard E. McKENNA, Plaintiff, v. BELL EQUIPMENT CORPORATION, a corporation, Defendant, v. The MARLEY COMPANY, a corporation, et al., Third-Party Defendants. Amedio VITALE, Plaintiff, v. BELL EQUIPMENT CORPORATION, a corporation, Defendant, v. The MARLEY COMPANY, a corporation, et al., Third-Party Defendants. The MARLEY COMPANY, a corporation, Plaintiff, v. BELL EQUIPMENT CORPORATION, a corporation, Defendant, v. SOCIETE de CONSTRUCTION MECANIQUES DU BUGEY and Tichauer et Cie, Third-Party Defendants.

United States District Court, W. D. Pennsylvania.

June 7, 1974.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

James E. Coyne, Lancaster, Mentzer, Coyne & Duffy, Pittsburgh, Pa., for Bell Equipment Corp.

Kim Darragh, Meyer, Darragh, Buckler, Bebenek & Eck, Pittsburgh, Pa., for Societe de Construction Mecaniques du Bugey and Tichauer et Cie.

George M. Weis, Weis & Weis, Pittsburgh, Pa., for The Marley Co.

Stokes, Lurie & Tracy, Pittsburgh, Pa., for plaintiffs Gorso, Chiconella, Tevis and McKenna.

Gatz, Cohen & O'Brien, Pittsburgh, Pa., for Phillips.

Laughlin, Gilardi & Cooper, Pittsburgh, Pa., for Vitale.

OPINION

JOHN L. MILLER, District Judge.

Now pending before the Court are the third-party defendants' motions to dismiss 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...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases