Legal Opinion
Borough of West Mifflin v. Lancaster
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Decided January 31, 1995No. 94-3025UnknownCited by 119 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
PRATT, Circuit Judge:
FACTS AND BACKGROUND
The operative facts giving rise to this mandamus application are set forth in the civil complaint of respondents Alan D. Lindsey and Randall Coughanour. In September 1991 Lindsey and Coughanour were involved in disputes with security guards at an indoor shopping mall on Route 51 in West Mifflin Borough, just south of Pittsburgh, Pa. They had travelled to the mall to shop, but upon their arrival, they were “harassed, threatened, and assaulted” by the security guards. When the guards refused their request that the police be summoned,…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- United Mine Workers of America v. GibbsSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Heck v. HumphreySupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- Carnegie-Mellon University v. CohillSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- American Fire & Casualty Co. v. FinnSupreme Court of the United States · 1951
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by119 opinions
- Quintez Talley v. John E. WetzelCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2021
- No. 94-3025Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1995
- ASSOCIATED BUILDERS & CONTRACTORS OF WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA v. COMMUNITY COLLEGE OF ALLEGHENY COUNTYDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 2022
- ASSOCIATED BUILDERS & CONTRACTORS OF WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA v. PLUM BOROUGHDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 2022
- Aaron Pryde, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated v. Orrstown BankDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2025
114 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.