Legal Opinion

Faison v. Sex Crimes Unit of Philadelphia

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Decided February 24, 1994No. Civ. A. 91-6601PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM

DuBOIS, District Judge.

Currently before the Court is the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Philadelphia Department of Human Services (“DHS”), Philadelphia Sex Crimes Unit (“SCU”), Miklos Pogonyi, and Pamela Gofberg (collectively, “the City defendants”). For the following reasons, the City defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment with respect to plaintiffs’ request for reinstatement of Marie Faison’s parental rights, which will be treated as a Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), will be granted. In all…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Allen v. McCurrySupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  3. Bell v. HoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
  4. Wilson v. GarciaSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  5. Migra v. Warren City School District Board of EducationSupreme Court of the United States · 1984

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. DiNicola v. DiPaoloDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1996
  2. Coover v. Saucon Valley School DistrictDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1997
  3. DiNicola v. DiPaoloDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1998
  4. In re: Ethiopian Airlines Flight ET 302 Crash; Emily and Joshua Babu, as personal representatives of the Estate of Jared Babu Mwazo v. The Boeing Company, Rosemount Aerospace, and Rockwell Collins, Inc.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2026
  5. Jackson v. East Hempfield Township Police Department, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lancaster County1997

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

Powered by the Exa API