Carhart v. Smith
District Court, D. Nebraska
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON THE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT
URBOM, District Judge.
This matter is before me on the defendants’ Amended Motion to Dismiss and to Make More Definite and Certain, filing 39. I have considered the briefs submitted by the parties, and I find that the defendants’ motion should be granted in part and denied in part as discussed below. The plaintiff shall have ten days to amend his complaint to address the deficiencies identified in this memorandum.
I. BACKGROUND
The plaintiff is a physician licensed to practice medicine in the State…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- Daniels v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. DoyleSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Roe v. WadeSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Hishon v. King & SpaldingSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. CaseySupreme Court of the United States · 1992
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Hardy v. 3 UNKNOWN AGENTSDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2010
- Closser v. P.C.C.W. Teleservices (US) Inc.District Court, D. Nebraska · 2021