Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Civil Procedure Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 3 of 3

Full-Text Articles in Civil Procedure

Implications Of A Revitalized 28 U.S.C. 1400(B): Identifying The Regular And Established Place Of Business For Patent Venue In The Internet Age, Steven Pepe, Samuel Brenner Jan 2017

Implications Of A Revitalized 28 U.S.C. 1400(B): Identifying The Regular And Established Place Of Business For Patent Venue In The Internet Age, Steven Pepe, Samuel Brenner

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.


Federal Civil Procedure-Venue-Effect Of 1948 Judicial Code Definition Of Corporate Residence On Venue Under The Jones Act, Mary Mandana Long Mar 1964

Federal Civil Procedure-Venue-Effect Of 1948 Judicial Code Definition Of Corporate Residence On Venue Under The Jones Act, Mary Mandana Long

Michigan Law Review

Plaintiff seaman, having been injured while serving on a vessel owned and operated by the defendant corporations, brought a civil action in federal district court alleging claims for negligence under the Jones Act, for unseaworthiness, and for maintenance and cure. The venue provision of the Jones Act requires that actions under it be brought in the district in which the defendant employer resides or in which his principal office is located. Plaintiff filed his complaint in the Western District of Pennsylvania although defendants were incorporated and maintained their principal offices in Louisiana. Defendants' motions to dismiss on the ground of …


Federal Procedure - Venue - Application Of Special Venue Provision To Change Of Venue In Patent Infringement Action, Dean L. Berry S.Ed. Mar 1959

Federal Procedure - Venue - Application Of Special Venue Provision To Change Of Venue In Patent Infringement Action, Dean L. Berry S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

Petitioner brought a patent infringement action in the northern district of Texas, wherein the alleged infringement occurred and the named defendants resided and had a regular place of business. On motion by the named defendants under 28 U.S.C. §1404(a), authorizing the transfer of certain actions to a district in which the action "might have been brought," the court ordered transfer to the northern district of Illinois where litigation on the same patent was already in progress between the plaintiff and other alleged infringers. Petitioner's motion for mandamus to require the Texas district court to set aside this transfer order was …