TEXAS
v.
NEW JERSEY ET AL.
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.
Property is subject to escheat by the state of the last-known address, or by New Jersey if no address is known or the address state does not escheat.
This case concerns the escheat of property held by Sun Oil Company. The court is determining which state has the right to escheat unclaimed property b…
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 State Of Incorporation cases and more on FLexlaw
It Is Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed as Follows :
1. Each item of property in question in this case as to which a last-known, address of the person entitled thereto is shown on the books and records of defendant Sun Oil Company is subject to escheat or custodial taking only by the State of that last-known address, as shown on the books and records of defendant Sun Oil Company, to the extent of that State’s power under its own laws to escheat or to take custodially.
2. Each item of property in question in this case as to which there is no address of the person entitled thereto shown on the books and records of defendant Sun Oil Company is subject to escheat or custodial taking only by New Jersey, the State in which Sun Oil Company was incorporated, to the extent of New Jersey’s power under its own laws to escheat or to take custodially, subject to the right of any other State to recover such property from New Jersey upon proof that the last-known address of the creditor was within that other State’s borders. 3. Each item of property in question in this case as to which the last-known address of the person entitled thereto as shown on the books and records of defendant Sun Oil Company is in a State, the laws of which do not provide for the escheat of such property, is subject to escheat or custodial taking only by New Jersey, the State in which Sun Oil Company was incorporated, to the extent of New Jersey’s power under its own laws to escheat or to take custodially, subject to the right of the State of the last-known address to recover the property from New Jersey if and when the law of the State of the last-known address makes provision for escheat or custodial taking of such property.
4. Any relief prayed for by any party to this action which is not hereby granted is denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (322 total)
-
Blinn v. Fla. Dep't OF Transp. & Sverdrup Corp., 781 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…ard, appellee recognizes the Supreme Court has held that Congress has the power, by virtue of Article III and the Necessary and Proper Clause, to enact laws that govern the practice and procedure of federal courts. See Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460, 85 S.Ct. 1136, 14 L.Ed.2d 8 (1965), and its progeny. However, appel-lees contend the supplemental jurisdiction statute goes beyond the power of Congress, because it ultimately governs practice and procedure in state courts. We cannot agree. One commentator has r…1 / 2
-
Hershel Meadows v. Krischer, 763 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…commitment petition. See § 394.467, Fla. Stat. (1999). The purpose of process is to notify the defendant of the proceeding against him and the need to respond, and to observe the court’s jurisdiction over the case. See Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460, 85 S.Ct. 1136, 14 L.Ed.2d 8 (1965); see also Conde v. Professional Mediquip of Fla., Inc., 436 So. 2d 322, 323 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)(noting that the object of service of process is to give notice of the upcoming proceeding and an opportunity to defend against it).…
-
Reuben J. Katz v. Carte Blanche Corp., 496 F.2d 747 (3d Cir. 1974)…licable state law requires mutuality of estoppel, the class action determination may be postponed and late opting is permitted. Compare Guaranty Trust Co. v. York, 326 U.S. 99, 65 S.Ct. 1464, 89 L.Ed. 2079 (1945), with Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460, 85 S.Ct. 1136, 14 L. Ed.2d 8 (1965). Cf. Guffey v. Smith, 237 U.S. 101, 35 S.Ct. 526, 59 L.Ed. 856 (1915). Such class actions are comparatively rare. But see Zahn v. International Paper Co., supra. Early notice in many diversity cases may have no adverse effects…
Previewing 3 of 322 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence