Legal Opinion
Henegar v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.
District Court, N.D. West Virginia
Decided February 13, 1997No. 5:96-cv-00049PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
BROADWATER, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on defendant Sears, Roebuck and Company’s (hereinafter “Defendant”) Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that the motion should be granted in part and denied in part.
I. Standard of Review
A Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss functions “to test the formal sufficiency of the statement of the claim for relief, it is not a procedure for resolving a contest about the facts or the merits of the ease.” Booth v. Old Nat. Bank, 900 F.Supp. 836, 840…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Alexander Shapolia v. Los Alamos National Laboratory, and John WhettenCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1993
- Shepherdstown Volunteer Fire Dept. v. State Ex Rel. State Human Rights CommissionWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1983
- Mylan Laboratories, Inc. v. MatkariCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1993
- Hanlon v. ChambersWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1995
- Larry Blalock v. Metals Trades, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1985
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Terveer v. BillingtonDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2014
- Yancey v. National Center on Institutions & AlternativesDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1997
- Scott v. Montgomery County School BoardDistrict Court, W.D. Virginia · 2013
- Billiter v. JonesDistrict Court, S.D. West Virginia · 2020
- Billiter v. JonesDistrict Court, S.D. West Virginia · 2020
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.