Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive
Search
Yahoo! News
Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com
Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog
Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Bernie Bierman, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Tampa Electric Company, Defendant-appellee
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. - 505 F.2d 122
Dec. 13, 1974, Rehearing Denied Jan. 15, 1975
James M. Colomb, Jr., Roy F. Guste, J. Harrison Henderson, III, New orleans, La., for plaintiff-appellant.
Robert B. Acomb, Jr., John J. Broders, New Orleans, La., for defendant-appellee.
Before GEWIN, AINSWORTH and GEE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
The appellant Bierman, a resident of Arkansas, filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana against Tampa Electric Company (Tampa), a corporation domiciled in Florida, alleging a breach of contract and violations of federal antitrust statutes. Bierman contends that the district court in Louisiana had jurisdiction of the case because Electro-Coal Transfer Corporation, a Louisiana corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Tampa, is the alter ego of its parent corporation. After a sufficient development of the pertinent facts, the district court dismissed the complaint for lack of in personam jurisdiction.
We have given careful consideration to the briefs, the contentions of the parties at oral argument and the record, and are firmly convinced that the order of dismissal was correct and should be affirmed. See Cannon Mfg. Co. v. Cudahy Packing Co., 267 U.S. 333, 45 S.Ct. 250, 69 L.Ed. 634 (1925); Markow v. Alcock, 356 F.2d 194 (5th Cir. 1966); McLean v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 85 F.2d 150 (5th Cir. 1936); Fawcett v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co., 242 F.Supp. 675 (W.D.La.), aff'd, 347 F.2d 233 (1965); J. Moore, Federal Practice P4.25(6), at 1174 (2d ed. 1974).
Judgment affirmed.