Legal Opinion
Dunn v. Warhol
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided December 11, 1991No. Civ. A. 91-4169PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
WALDMAN, District Judge.
I. BACKGROUND
This is a Title VII employment case in which plaintiff also seeks damages for in tentional infliction of emotional distress. Presently before the court are defendants’ motions to dismiss Count II of the complaint in which the emotional distress claim is asserted.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
The purpose of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is to test the legal sufficiency of a complaint. Sturm v. Clark, 835 F.2d 1009, 1111 (3d Cir.1987). In deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the court must “accept as true all the allegations in the complaint and…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Hishon v. King & SpaldingSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Pennsylvania ex rel. Zimmerman v. Pepsico, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1988
- Robb, James v. City of Philadelphia and Mann, Fredric R. And Horowitz, Vladimir and Crawford, Robert W. And Washington, Nathaniel and Doe, JohnCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1984
- Sturm v. ClarkCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1987
- Poyser v. Newman & Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Hicks v. ArthurDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1994
- Anderson v. Save-A-Lot, Ltd.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1999
- Price v. Philadelphia Electric Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1992
- Rodgers v. Prudential Insurance Co. of AmericaDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1992
- Heath v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.