TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Potocni v. Asco Mining Co.

Stephen POTOCNI v. ASCO MINING COMPANY, Inc., a corporation

Potocni v. Asco Mining Co., 186 F. Supp. 912 (W.D. Pa. 1960)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Federal District Courts
Decided
July 1, 1960
Docket
No. 60-215
Judges
Gourley
Citations
186 F. Supp. 9121960 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3478

Opinion of the Court — Gourley

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

WALLACE S. GOURLEY, Chief Judge.

In this diversity action stemming from a motor vehicle collision, defendant has filed motion to dismiss the complaint for the reason that the principal place of business of defendant, Asco Mining Company, Inc., within the meaning of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1332 , as amended effective July 25, 1958, is within the State of Pennsylvania. The plaintiff is a citizen of Pennsylvania.

It is not in dispute that defendant was incorporated under the laws of the State of New York in 1958, for the purpose of mining and marketing coal in Pennsylvania; that since its incorporation all of its operations with respect to the mining and marketing of coal have been done and have taken place in Pennsylvania where it has an office at Hillards, Butler County, Pennsylvania.

Further, it is not disputed that defendant is the coal producing arm of the C. L. Amos Coal Company in Pennsylvania. The coal mined by the Aseo Mining Company in Pennsylvania is sold exclusively to the C. L. Amos Coal Company at its tipple in Butler County, Pennsylvania.

Plaintiff relies upon the proposition that diversity exists since defendant maintains an office in Syracuse, New York where payments are consummated and all records maintained, and that Syracuse, New York constitutes defendant’s principal place of business.

I do not agree.

I am in accord with the view expressed by my associate, Judge Joseph P. Willson, that the state wherein a corporation carries on its chief operations is *913 the principal place of business of that corporation, Kelly v. United States Steel Corporation, Cal7251, filed February 17, 1960, officially unreported. I therefore conclude that defendant corporation has its principal place of business in Pennsylvania and the jurisdictional prerequisite of diversity is wanting.

I am likewise cognizant that a line of decisions of the United States Courts hold that the office wherein the supreme control over the corporate affairs is exercised is the principal place of business of the corporation, see cases cited under 11 U.S.C.A. § 11 . I shall therefore certify that an immediate appeal from my order dismissing this action against Asco Mining Company, Inc., defendant, may materially advance the ultimate termination of this litigation.

An appropriate order is entered.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1960: 21965: 11974: 11976: 11989: 119602026peak 1960 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Kelly v. United States Steel Corp.284 F.2d 850 (3d Cir. 1960)
  2. Blair Riggs v. Island Creek Coal Company542 F.2d 339 (6th Cir. 1976)
  3. Leve v. General Motors Corporation246 F. Supp. 761 (S.D.N.Y. 1965)
  4. Nerco Delamar Co. v. North American Silver Co.702 F. Supp. 809 (D. Idaho 1989)
  5. Jack R. Kelly v. United States Steel Corporation and the Thew Shovel Company, a Corporation, Homer L284 F.2d 850 (3d Cir. 1960)
  6. Riggs v. ISLAND CREEK COAL COMPANY387 F. Supp. 1363 (S.D. Ohio 1974)

Most recent

  1. Nerco Delamar Co. v. North American Silver Co.702 F. Supp. 809 (D. Idaho 1989)
  2. Blair Riggs v. Island Creek Coal Company542 F.2d 339 (6th Cir. 1976)
  3. Riggs v. ISLAND CREEK COAL COMPANY387 F. Supp. 1363 (S.D. Ohio 1974)
  4. Leve v. General Motors Corporation246 F. Supp. 761 (S.D.N.Y. 1965)
  5. Jack R. Kelly v. United States Steel Corporation and the Thew Shovel Company, a Corporation, Homer L284 F.2d 850 (3d Cir. 1960)
  6. Kelly v. United States Steel Corp.284 F.2d 850 (3d Cir. 1960)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list