Legal Opinion
Agresta v. City of Philadelphia
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided August 23, 1988No. Civ. A. 87-8308PublishedCited by 31 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
VAN ANTWERPEN, District Judge.
Before the court is the city defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint. In the introduction to the motion, the “city defendants” are said to be: Sambor, Tucker, Gillespie, Fitzpatrick, Doman, Baker, “several unknown police officers”, the City of Philadelphia, and the Philadelphia Police Department. In the interest of clarity, we shall address seriatim those claims and those defendants whom these defendants seek to have dismissed from this action. Dismissal of Claims Under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1986 and 1988 Against All Defendants
Since the plaintiff…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs.Supreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Rizzo v. GoodeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Salvadore Rotolo v. The Borough of Charleroi (Two Cases)Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1976
- Negrich v. HohnCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1967
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by31 opinions
- Johnson v. City of Erie, Pa.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1993
- Scheetz v. Morning Call, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1990
- DeBellis v. KulpDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2001
- M.S. ex rel. Hall v. Susquehanna Township School DistrictDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2014
- White v. FauverDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1998
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.