Legal Opinion
Scheetz v. Morning Call, Inc.
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided February 27, 1990No. Civ. A. No. 89-6755PublishedCited by 67 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
CAHN, District Judge.
The plaintiffs, Rosann and Kenneth Scheetz, have sued The Morning Call, Inc. (hereinafter “Morning Call”), Terry L. Mutchler, and at least one fictitious defendant for violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Pennsylvania Constitution and for the common-law tort of invasion of privacy. Defendants Morning Call and Mutchler have moved to dismiss the fictitious defendants) and to dismiss the rest of the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. These motions are denied.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
For the purposes of these motions, the following facts pled in the…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of NarcoticsSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
- United Mine Workers of America v. GibbsSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Roe v. WadeSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Gillespie v. CivilettiCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1980
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by67 opinions
- Hindes v. Federal Deposit Insurance CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1998
- Johnson v. City of Erie, Pa.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1993
- Rosann C. Scheetz Kenneth L. Scheetz, Jr. v. The Morning Call, Inc. Terry L. Mutchler John Doe And/or Jane DoeCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1991
- Millbrook v. United StatesDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2014
- Jones v. St. Tammany Parish JailDistrict Court, E.D. Louisiana · 1998
62 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.