Legal Opinion
United States Ex Rel. Mayman v. Martin Marietta Corp.
District Court, D. Maryland
Decided April 27, 1995No. Civ. A. MJG-91-1853PublishedCited by 25 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
GARBIS, District Judge.
The Court has before it Defendant Martin Marietta’s Motion to Dismiss. The Court has considered the parties’ various submissions and has held a hearing on the Motion and has had the benefit of the arguments of counsel.
I. LEGAL STANDARD
A motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) ought not be granted unless “it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957). The Court,…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Scheuer v. RhodesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Jenkins v. McKeithenSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- United States of America, Ex Rel. James M. Hagood v. Sonoma County Water Agency, James M. Hagood v. Sonoma County Water AgencyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1991
- The A. S. Abell Company v. John W. Chell, and Robert F. Neugebauer, IntervenorCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1969
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- Norman I. Gold v. Morrison-Knudsen Co., Black River Constructors, Fort Drum Constructors, and National Structures, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1995
- United States Ex Rel. Purcell v. MWI Corp.District Court, District of Columbia · 2003
- United States Ex Rel. Long v. SCS Business & Technical InstituteDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1998
- United States Ex Rel. Walsh v. Eastman Kodak Co.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 2000
- United States ex rel. Phipps v. Comprehensive Community Development Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 2001
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.