HIMMELBLAU v. HAIST


195 F.Supp. 356 (1961)

Leo M. HIMMELBLAU, Plaintiff, v. W. A. HAIST, Jr., et al., Intervenors, Harold Roth et al., Defendants.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

June 9, 1961.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Kaufman, Taylor & Kimmel, New York City, for plaintiff and intervenors. Eisman, Lee, Corn, Sheftel & Bloch, New York City, co-counsel. Irwin M. Taylor, Shephard S. Miller, New York City, of counsel.

Grossman & Grossman, New York City, for defendant Hyman Marcus.


METZNER, District Judge.

This motion by Hyman Marcus, one of the individual defendants, is brought pursuant to Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.

The original complaint, in the nature of a derivative stockholders' suit, was instituted by Himmelblau against a number of defendants. Jurisdiction was based upon diversity. Subsequently, upon motion by the defendants, plaintiff was...

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