Legal Opinion
Kenworthy v. Hargrove
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided June 10, 1994No. Civ. A. 92-7416, 93-1699PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
VAN ANTWERPEN, District Judge.
This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arises out of the summary seizure and subsequent reconstitution of the Tobias Knoblauch Private Bank. In an Order dated June 29, 1993 in Dinnocenti v. Hargrove, Civ. No. 93-1699 (E.D.Pa.1993), this court consolidated the above-captioned matters pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a). Defendant Sarah W. Hargrove has now moved for partial summary judgment against the plaintiffs in the Dinnocenti case (hereinafter “Limited Partners”) on all but one Count of their Complaint. 1 We first review the facts that…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- United States v. Diebold, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Gans, Curtis, G. v. Mundy, James F. And the Law Firm of Raynes, McCarty Binder & MundyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1985
- Billy R. Whalen v. Prentiss H. Carter, Jr., Claude Sharkey v. The Bank of Greensburg, John Fussell v. The Bank of GreensburgCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1992
- Riviera Congress Associates ex rel. Lewy v. YasskyNew York Court of Appeals · 1966
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- John D. Alvin v. Jon B. SuzukiCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2000
- Alvin v. SuzukiCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2000
- Weston v. Northampton Personal Care, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2013
- Little v. CookeSupreme Court of Virginia · 2007
- Golden Tee, Inc. v. Venture Golf Schools, Inc.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1998
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.