Legal Opinion
Valley v. Maule
District Court, D. Connecticut
Decided December 26, 1968No. Civ. A. 12554, 12556PublishedCited by 51 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RULING ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS OR FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
CLARIE, District Judge.
The defendants, Sessions Clock and Harry A. Miller have moved for alternative relief to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, pursuant to Rules 12(b) (6) and 12(b) (1), Fed.R.Civ.P. and for summary judgment. These two suits were brought against certain members of the police department of the City of Bristol, the municipality itself, The Sessions Clock Company and its managing agent, Harry A. Miller, under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985.…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Monroe v. PapeSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
- Pierson v. RaySupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Snowden v. HughesSupreme Court of the United States · 1944
- Adolph G. Hoffman v. C. H. Halden, Dr. Donald E. Wair, Dr. G. F. Keller and Dr. F. Sydney HansenCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1959
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by51 opinions
- Kauffman v. MossCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1970
- Young v. KeohaneDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1992
- Salvadore Rotolo v. The Borough of Charleroi (Two Cases)Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1976
- Kadar Corp. v. Mary H. MilburyCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1977
- United States v. City of PhiladelphiaCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1980
46 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.