U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, 1946

Otis & Co. v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · Decided May 29, 1946 · Maris, Goodrich, and McLaughlin, Circuit Judges

155 F.2d 522; 1946 U.S. App. LEXIS 2234 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Robert J. Bulkley, of Washington, D. C. (James F. Masterson, of Philadelphia, Pa., and Russell Hardy and Herbert G. Pillen, both of Washington, D. C., on the brief) for appellant., John Dickinson and R. Sturgis Ingersoll, both of Philadelphia, Pa. (Albert Ward, R. Sturgis Ingersoll, and Ballard, Spahr, Andrews & Ingersoll, of Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellees.

Cases that cite this one

5 later published cases cite this decision.

Messing v. FDI, Inc. (District Court, D. New Jersey 1977)
Cannon v. US Acoustics Corporation (District Court, N.D. Illinois 1975)
Nanfito v. TEKSEED HYBRID COMPANY (United States District Court, Nebraska 1972)
Frieda Suffin v. The Pennsylvania Railroad Company, the Pennsylvania Company and Norfolk Andwestern Railway Company (3d Cir. 1968)
Selama-Dindings Plantations, Ltd. v. Durham (District Court, S.D. Ohio 1963)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an action by a shareholder suing the corporate and individual defendants for alleged negligence in failing to take steps which the plaintiff alleges were necessary in the exercise of reasonable care in the course of the refunding of certain corporate indebtedness. There is little, if any, dispute between the parties as to the rules of law applicable. The appellant makes the point that the court’s conclusion did not properly apply the law to the facts before it. This matter was thoroughly considered by Judge Kalodner in the District Court and every important phase of the matter was discussed in his opinion. 1945, 61 F. Supp. 905. We agree with that opinion and affirm his judgment for the reasons stated by him.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.