Legal Opinion
DiJoseph v. City of Philadelphia
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided January 31, 1997No. Civil Action 95-1803PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
ANITA B. BRODY, District Judge.
Plaintiff Andrew DiJoseph (“DiJoseph”) brings this motion for reconsideration (“Motion for Reconsideration”) of the judgment I entered in favor of defendant police officers Deborah Mattiacci and George Hairston, Philadelphia Police Commissioner Richard Neal, and the City of Philadelphia in DiJoseph v. City of Philadelphia, 947 F.Supp. 834 (E.D.Pa.1996), 1996 WL 691534 (No. 95-1803, Oct. 22, 1996) (DiJoseph 7). 1 DiJoseph-alleges that Officers Mattiacci and Hairston violated his Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process rights under the state-created…
2Cases cited37 opinions
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs.Supreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Harlow v. FitzgeraldSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Anderson v. CreightonSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- City of Canton v. HarrisSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Lorraine Gormley v. Latanya Wood-El (069717)Supreme Court of New Jersey · 2014
- Burns v. MayerDistrict Court, D. Nevada · 2001
- Switzer v. RiveraDistrict Court, D. Nevada · 2001
- Jubilee v. HornDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1997
- DiJoseph v. VuottoDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1997
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.