Edwards v. Barton

First Circuit

Edwards v. Barton

19 F. App'x 7

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedSeptember 26, 2001

DocketNo. 01-1148

StatusPublished

This text of 19 F. App'x 7 (Edwards v. Barton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Edwards v. Barton, 19 F. App'x 7 (1st Cir. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Allan G. Edwards, Jr. appeals from the dismissal of his complaint filed against Caterpillar Corporation, the Chairman and C.E.O. of Caterpillar, Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation, and three employees of Caterpillar Financial Services. After carefully reviewing the record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the district court for essentially the reasons stated in its Memorandum and Order, dated November 28, 2000. We add only that there is clearly no specific personal jurisdiction over any of the appellees—the events in question in the appellant’s suit all occurred at distant locations—and that the record contains no facts upon which a claim of general personal jurisdiction might be premised.

Affirmed. See Local Rule 27(c).

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Allan G. Edwards, Jr. appeals from the dismissal of his complaint filed against Caterpillar Corporation, the Chairman and C.E.O. of Caterpillar, Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation, and three employees of Caterpillar Financial Services. After carefully reviewing the record and the briefs of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the district court for essentially the reasons stated in its Memorandum and Order, dated November 28, 2000. We add only that there is clearly no specific personal jurisdiction over any of the appellees—the events in question in the appellant’s suit all occurred at distant locations—and that the record contains no facts upon which a claim of general personal jurisdiction might be premised.

Affirmed. See Local Rule 27(c).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 F. App'x 7, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edwards-v-barton-ca1-2001.