Legal Opinion

Danner v. Moore

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

Decided December 3, 1969No. Civ. A. 69-404PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION AND ORDER

MARSH, District Judge.

The defendants, except Ray Quinlan who was not served, moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s amended complaint seek ing damages under Civil Rights Act, Sec. 1983, Title 42 U.S.C., and Sec. 1343, Title 28 U.S.C.

I

The reasons for dismissal, inter alia, stated by the defendants, Costanza, Mack, Yagle, and Logue are:

1. The court does not have jurisdiction of the matters alleged in the amended complaint.

2. As public officers they are immune from liability.

3. Plaintiff has not exhausted state remedies.

4. The complaint is frivolous.

In my opinion the motion should be…

2Cases cited18 opinions

Monroe v. PapeSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
Pierson v. RaySupreme Court of the United States · 1967
Snowden v. HughesSupreme Court of the United States · 1944
McNeese v. Board of Education for Community Unit School District 187 CahokiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
Adolph G. Hoffman v. C. H. Halden, Dr. Donald E. Wair, Dr. G. F. Keller and Dr. F. Sydney HansenCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1959

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

James M. MacFarlane v. Ella T. GrassoCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1982
Kroehler v. ScottDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1975
Ammlung v. City of ChesterDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1973
Korotki v. GoughanDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1984
Saunders v. CahillDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1973

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.