Legal Opinion
McArdle v. Tronetti
District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Decided August 1, 1991No. Civ. A. 91-74 ERIEPublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
I
Conventional wisdom provides that “just because you are paranoid, it doesn’t mean that they aren’t out to get you.” And so it goes with the travails of plaintiff Paul McArdle, Esquire. Mr. McArdle has been diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic, and although he ardently challenges that diagnosis at every opportunity, his tale is an apophasistic account of no less than seven otherwise venerable citizens who abused, harassed and persecuted him for no reason whatsoever. Among them are the two defendants, Dr. Tronetti and Mr. Reilly. By the conventional wisdom we cannot say that…
2Cases cited37 opinions
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Estelle v. GambleSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Carnegie-Mellon University v. CohillSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Imbler v. PachtmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Parratt v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Paul J. McArdle v. Michael J. Tronetti and Steven ReillyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1992
- Maldonado v. TerhuneDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1998
- Green v. City of PatersonDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1997
- D'AURIZIO v. Palisades ParkDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1997
- D'AURIZIO v. Palisades ParkDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1997
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.