ARTHUR WOOD CROXTON, APPELLANT,
v.
KING'S DEPARTMENT STORE OF NEWPORT NEWS, INC., AND RAYSON PRECISION CORPORATION, APPELLEES

4th Cir. | 1971-10-12
No. 14064
449 F.2d 777 United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (1971) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

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.


Holding

The court held that the district court's findings regarding the corporation's principal place of business were not clearly erroneous, thus affirming the dismissal for lack of diversity jurisdiction.


Facts & Procedural History

Plaintiff sued a corporation, alleging diversity jurisdiction. The corporation moved to dismiss, arguing its principal place of business was in Virgin…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:

PER CURIAM:

The question on appeal is whether there is diversity of citizenship to support federal jurisdiction. The appellant, Arthur Wood Croxton, plaintiff below, is a citizen of Virginia. The defendant, King’s Department Store of Newport News, Inc., moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction alleging that, although it is a Delaware corporation, its “principal place of business” is Newport News, Virginia, and for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction it is a citizen of Virginia under and within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c) which reads as follows:
“For the purposes of this section and section 1441 of this title, a corporation shall be deemed a citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of business.” (Emphasis added.)

Croxton contends that King’s principal place of business is in another state.

The district court dismissed the action for lack of diversity jurisdiction by order entered August 29, 1967. On appeal this court vacated that order and remanded to the district court for supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to the principal place of business of King’s and the question of diversity of citizenship.

Pursuant to this court’s directive the district court, on remand, “gathered” additional evidence and filed its Memorandum Opinion dated March 5, 1971, containing extensive findings of fact and conclusions of law. The court concluded that the principal place of business of the defendant, King’s, is in Virginia and by order of April 7, 1971, dismissed the action for lack of diversity jurisdiction. This appeal is prosecuted from the order of April 7, 1971.

Upon review we are unable to say that the findings as to material facts are clearly erroneous. We affirm on the opinion of the district court. (E.D.Va. 1971).

Affirmed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw