Legal Opinion
Dooley v. United Technologies Corp.
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided May 11, 1993No. Civ. A. No. 91-2499PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
JUNE L. GREEN, District Judge.
Plaintiff Thomas Dooley seeks leave to amend the Complaint in a motion filed on January 25, 1993. The primary purpose of Plaintiffs motion is to re-plead allegations against Frank E. Basil, Inc. (Basil).1 Plaintiff brought his action against Basil and other defendants in October 1991. On June 17, 1992, the Court ordered the Complaint dismissed without prejudice as to Defendant Basil because Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. See Dooley v. United Technologies Corp., No. 91-2499, 1992 WL 167053, (D.D.C. June 17, 1992).…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Foman v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Hanna v. PlumerSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- Holmberg v. ArmbrechtSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
- Jimmy P. Davis, as of the Estate of Dallas D. Hardy, Jr., Deceased v. Piper Aircraft CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1980
- Josiah Haynesworth and Fred Hancock v. Frank P. Miller, Chief, Law Enforcement Section, Office of the Corporation Counsel, (Two Cases)Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1987
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- In re Vitamins Antitrust LitigationDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2003
- Shea v. ClintonDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2012
- Ford Motor Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 1995
- Butler v. SchapiroDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2014
- Adair v. JohnsonDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2003
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.