Legal Opinion
Ginter v. Stallcup
District Court, E.D. Arkansas
Decided June 11, 1986No. LR-C-85-381PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
EISELE, Chief Judge.
The defendants, James Blasingame and Jack Knox, agents for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, have moved to dismiss the complaint against them pursuant to Rule 12 and Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. They moved for dismissal essentially on the seven grounds set forth in their prayer, to wit:
1. Plaintiff has not satisfied the technical requirements of service of process of Rule 4, Fed.R.Civ.P.
2. The complaint should be dismissed for failure to comply with Rule 8(a), Fed.R.Civ.P., and because it fails to state a claim upon which relief…
2Cases cited53 opinions
- Harlow v. FitzgeraldSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Mitchell v. ForsythSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Imbler v. PachtmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Parratt v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Stump v. SparkmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
48 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Africa v. City of PhiladelphiaCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1995
- Ginter v. StallcupCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1989
- Culpepper v. SmithSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1990
- In Re City of Philadelphia LitigationDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1994
- Scarso v. Cuyahoga County Department of Human ServicesDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 1989
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.