Bernie Bierman v. Tampa Electric Company

Fifth Circuit

Bernie Bierman v. Tampa Electric Company

505 F.2d 122

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 15, 1975

Docket74-1365

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 505 F.2d 122 (Bernie Bierman v. Tampa Electric Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bernie Bierman v. Tampa Electric Company, 505 F.2d 122 (5th Cir. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

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. Cuda-hy Packing Co., 267 U.S. 333, 45 S.Ct. *123 250, 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 ¶ 4.25 [6], at 1174 (2d ed. 1974).

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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. Cuda-hy Packing Co., 267 U.S. 333, 45 S.Ct. *123 250, 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 ¶ 4.25 [6], at 1174 (2d ed. 1974).

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

505 F.2d 122, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bernie-bierman-v-tampa-electric-company-ca5-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack