Legal Opinion
Hixon v. Durbin
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided July 27, 1982No. Civ. A. 82-708PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
NEWCOMER, District Judge.
Defendants in this civil rights action, which arose out of a dispute over a state employment contract, have raised a number of jurisdictional challenges to the complaint. Before me now are the motion of defendants Harvey Bartle III and Jay Waldman to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) and the motion of defendants Fred Heddinger and John Durbin for partial judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Plaintiff Barry Hixon claims that the actions of all defendants in this case deprived him of his rights,…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Board of Regents of State Colleges v. RothSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Perry v. SindermannSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Paul v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Carey v. PiphusSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Motown Record Corp. v. George A. Hormel & Co.District Court, C.D. California · 1987
- Hixon v. DurbinDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1983