Legal Opinion

Kufalk v. Hart

District Court, N.D. Illinois

Decided March 18, 1985No. 84 C 20077PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER

ROSZKOWSKI, District Judge.

Before the court are defendants’ motions to dismiss. The court’s subject matter jurisdiction is asserted to rest upon 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (1982) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1982). For the reasons set forth herein, defendants’ motions are denied.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges a violation of § 1983 and also alleges pendent state tort and contract actions. For purposes of the present motions, the facts alleged in the plaintiffs complaint must be accepted as true. The relevant factual allegations are essentially as follows.

Plaintiff, Robert L. Kufalk, was…

2Cases cited50 opinions

  1. Harlow v. FitzgeraldSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  2. Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
  3. Board of Regents of State Colleges v. RothSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  4. Scheuer v. RhodesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  5. Ex Parte YoungSupreme Court of the United States · 1908

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Duldulao v. Saint Mary of Nazareth Hospital CenterIllinois Supreme Court · 1987
  2. Nordling v. Northern States Power Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1991
  3. Argento v. Village of Melrose ParkCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1988
  4. Cromley v. Bd. of Educ. of LockportDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1988
  5. ILL. FARMERS INSURANCE CO. v. PrestonAppellate Court of Illinois · 1987

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

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

Powered by the Exa API