Cessna Aircraft Co. v. Focht

Tenth Circuit

Cessna Aircraft Co. v. Focht

336 F.2d 603

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 9, 1964

DocketNos. 7554, 7555

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 336 F.2d 603 (Cessna Aircraft Co. v. Focht) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cessna Aircraft Co. v. Focht, 336 F.2d 603 (10th Cir. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The question presented by these interlocutory appeals is (1) whether at the time of the attempted service of summons on one of the stockholders of the appellant-foreign corporation, it was doing business in the State of Colorado, hence amenable to the juridiction of the courts in that State; and (2) if so, whether in the circumstances the service of the summons on the resident stockholder is in the “manner prescribed” by Colorado law. See F.R.Civ.P. 4(d) (7).

Colorado law on the subject is admittedly controlling, and the trial judge, a former Justice of the Supreme Court of Colorado, has analyzed the decisions, based upon the universally accepted general rule. The trial court concluded that the appellant was doing business in the State of Colorado and amenable to service of process. The Court also construed the applicable Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure (4(e) (5)) to authorize service on the appellant’s resident stockholder. See Focht v. Southwestern Skyways, D.C., 220 F.Supp. 441.

We accept the trial court’s interpretation of Colorado law, and the judgment is affirmed for the reasons stated in its reported decision. Cf. Massey-Ferguson Ltd. v. Intermountain Ford Tractor Sales Co., et al., 10 Cir., 325 F.2d 713.

SETH, Circuit Judge, dissents.

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

PER CURIAM.

The question presented by these interlocutory appeals is (1) whether at the time of the attempted service of summons on one of the stockholders of the appellant-foreign corporation, it was doing business in the State of Colorado, hence amenable to the juridiction of the courts in that State; and (2) if so, whether in the circumstances the service of the summons on the resident stockholder is in the “manner prescribed” by Colorado law. See F.R.Civ.P. 4(d) (7).

Colorado law on the subject is admittedly controlling, and the trial judge, a former Justice of the Supreme Court of Colorado, has analyzed the decisions, based upon the universally accepted general rule. The trial court concluded that the appellant was doing business in the State of Colorado and amenable to service of process. The Court also construed the applicable Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure (4(e) (5)) to authorize service on the appellant’s resident stockholder. See Focht v. Southwestern Skyways, D.C., 220 F.Supp. 441.

We accept the trial court’s interpretation of Colorado law, and the judgment is affirmed for the reasons stated in its reported decision. Cf. Massey-Ferguson Ltd. v. Intermountain Ford Tractor Sales Co., et al., 10 Cir., 325 F.2d 713.

SETH, Circuit Judge, dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

336 F.2d 603, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cessna-aircraft-co-v-focht-ca10-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack