General Investment Co. v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that denial of a motion to dismiss for improper service was interlocutory and district court could reconsider the same motion after removal
• affirming the Sixth Circuit's decision and stating that if the action sought to enjoin a shareholder's voting rights, it was \obvious that the [larger shareholder] was an indispensable party\
• questioning whether sound rationales support the finding of exclusive federal antitrust jurisdiction
• affirming the Sixth Circuit’s decision and stating that if the action sought to enjoin a shareholder’s voting rights, it was “obvious that the [larger shareholder] was an indispensable party”
• “When a cause is re moved from a state court into a federal court, the latter takes it as it stood in the former.”
• state court may not hear claim brought under antitrust laws; right to sue to be “exercised only in a ‘court of the United States’ ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).