Legal Opinion
Crosten v. Kamauf
District Court, D. Maryland
Decided March 25, 1996No. Civil Action WMN 95-1934PublishedCited by 94 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
NICKERSON, District Judge.
Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Paper No. 8. Plaintiff has opposed the motion, and Defendants have replied. Upon a review of the motion and the applicable case law, the Court determines that no hearing is necessary (Local Rule 105.6) and that Defendants’ motion will be granted in part and denied in part.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Michele Crosten has brought this action against her former employer, Memorial Hospital and Medical Center of Cumberland [“Memorial”], and one of her former supervisors, David Kamauf, alleging that she was subjected…
2Cases cited29 opinions
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Jenkins v. McKeithenSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- Adams v. BainCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1982
- Harris v. JonesCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1977
- Elizabeth M. Paroline v. Unisys Corporation Edgar L. MooreCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1989
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by94 opinions
- Davis v. ThompsonDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 2005
- Farasat v. PaulikasDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1997
- Brown v. Children's National Medical CenterDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2011
- Baltimore-Washington Telephone Co. v. Hot Leads Co.District Court, D. Maryland · 2008
- Moffett v. Computer Sciences Corp.District Court, D. Maryland · 2006
89 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.