Loftus v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
ROBRENO, District Judge.
Before the Court is the issue of what amount of factual detail and degree of particularity must be pled to state a cause of action for conspiracy to violate 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence & Coordination Unit, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 1160, 122 L.Ed.2d 517 (1993) (holding that § 1983 actions against a municipality cannot be held to a heightened standard of specificity).
Plaintiff Francis J. Loftus (“Loftus”) brings the instant action under § 1983, alleging that his former employer,…
2Cases cited31 opinions
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation v. White Consolidated Industries, Inc., C/o Ct Corporation Systems Registered AgentCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1993
- Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination UnitSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. CaseySupreme Court of the United States · 1992
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by48 opinions
- Grigsby v. KaneDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2003
- Tyco Fire Products LP v. Victaulic Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2011
- Spencer v. SteinmanDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1997
- Gmurzynska v. HuttonDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2003
- Pardo v. Pacificare of Texas, Inc. (In Re APF Co.)United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Delaware · 2001
43 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.