CESSNA AIRCRAFT COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
JOSIAH LAWRENCE FOCHT, AND SOUTHWESTERN SKYWAYS, INC., A CORPORATION, APPELLEES; CESSNA AIRCRAFT COMPANY, APPELLANT, V. JOSEPH KENMUIR FICKLIN, JR., AND SOUTHWESTERN SKYWAYS, INC., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the appellant-foreign corporation was doing business in Colorado and that service of process on its resident stockholder was valid under Colorado law.
The case involves interlocutory appeals concerning whether a foreign corporation was doing business in Colorado and if service of process on a residen…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Amenability To Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Elliott v. Edwards Eng'g Corp., 364 F.2d 991 (10th Cir. 1966)
Authorities Cited
- Massey-Ferguson Ltd. v. Intermountain Ford Tractor Sales Co., 325 F.2d 713 (10th Cir. 1963)