Legal Opinion
Paley v. Estate of Ogus
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided September 30, 1998No. Civ.A. 96-498 SSHPublishedCited by 27 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
STANLEY S. HARRIS, District Judge.
Before the Court are defendants’ motion to dismiss and plaintiffs’ opposition thereto. Upon consideration of the entire record and accepting the factual allegations in the amended complaint as true, the Court grants the motion in part, denies it in part, and defers ruling in part on defendants’ motion. “Findings of fact and conclusions of law are unnecessary on decisions of motions under Rule 12 or 56.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a); Summers v. Department of Justice, 140 F.3d 1077, 1079-80 (D.C.Cir.1998). Nonetheless, the Court sets forth its reasoning.
BACKGROUND
P…
2Cases cited43 opinions
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Allen v. McCurrySupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Saint Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Montana v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Federated Department Stores, Inc. v. MoitieSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by27 opinions
- Reiffin v. Microsoft Corp.District Court, District of Columbia · 2000
- Jane Does I Through III v. District of ColumbiaDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2002
- Lans v. Adduci Mastriani & Schaumberg L.L.P.District Court, District of Columbia · 2011
- Meng v. SchwartzDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2004
- American Forest Resource Council v. SheaDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2001
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.