Legal Opinion

Venero v. City of Tampa, Fla.

District Court, M.D. Florida

Decided September 23, 1993No. 93-410-Civ-T-17APublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER

KOVACHEVICH, District Judge.

This cause is before the Court on Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Docket No. 6) and response thereto (Docket No. 7).

When the sufficiency of a claim is being evaluated for purposes of a motion to dismiss, the Court must accept the allegations as true, viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff. Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73, 104 S.Ct. 2229, 2232, 81 L.Ed.2d 59 (1984). The motion to dismiss should not be granted unless Plaintiff would not be- able to prove any set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief. Conley v.…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
  2. Hishon v. King & SpaldingSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  3. Christie v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1975
  4. Stone v. University of Maryland Medical System Corp.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1988
  5. Kamenesh v. City of MiamiDistrict Court, S.D. Florida · 1991

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Larkin v. Town of West HartfordDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 1995
  2. Paasch v. City of Safety HarborDistrict Court, M.D. Florida · 1995
  3. Venero v. TampaCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1994
  4. Symonies v. McAndrewDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2019

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API