Legal Opinion
Dugan v. Bell Telephone of Pennsylvania
District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Decided September 27, 1994No. Civ. A. 94-73PublishedCited by 26 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
BLOCH, District Judge.
Presently before the Court is defendants’ Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ amended complaint. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant defendants’ motion in part and deny it in part.
I. Background
Plaintiffs, Lawrence Dugan (Dugan) and his wife, filed an amended seven-count complaint on March 17, 1994, asserting the following claims: (1) Dugan against Bell Atlantic Corporation (Bell Atlantic), Bell Telephone Company of Pennsylvania (Bell of PA), and Frank Hoffman (Hoffman), a Bell Atlantic employee, for violations of the Racketeer…
2Cases cited51 opinions
- Hishon v. King & SpaldingSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Kehr Packages, Inc. v. Fidelcor, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1991
- Lightning Lube, Inc. v. Witco Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1993
- Rose v. BartleCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1989
- The Dartmouth Review, on Behalf of Its Officers, Staff and Subscribers v. Dartmouth CollegeCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1989
46 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- Independent Enterprises Inc. Thomas Lozecki v. Pittsburgh Water and Sewer Authority City of PittsburghCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1997
- Joseph R. Matczak v. Frankford Candy and Chocolate Company, Joseph MatczakCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1997
- Allum v. Valley Bank of NevadaNevada Supreme Court · 1998
- Steinke v. Sungard Financial Systems, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1997
- Gerzog v. London Fog Corp.District Court, E.D. New York · 1995
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.