Legal Opinion
Doe v. Methacton School District
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided March 16, 1995No. 2:94-cr-00244PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
JOYNER, District Judge.
Defendant Methacton School District, and Defendants Gerald Raske, John Klock and J. Russell McConnell (the Methacton Defendants), each of whom is a current or former employee of the Methacton School District, move this Court for dismissal of all the claims against them in Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. This motion is based on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6); Methacton Defendants assert that Plaintiffs have failed to state claims for which relief can be granted.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The facts underlying this litigation are tragic. According to the Amended…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Harlow v. FitzgeraldSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Kentucky v. GrahamSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social ServicesSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Rochin v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1952
- Ingraham v. WrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Morse v. Lower Merion School DistrictCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1997
- Sassak v. City of Park RidgeDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 2006
- DiJoseph v. City of PhiladelphiaDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1997
- Shrum Ex Rel. Kelly v. KluckDistrict Court, D. Nebraska · 2000
- Long v. Armstrong CountyDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 2016
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.