Legal Opinion
Padover v. Gimbel Bros., Inc.
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided February 11, 1976No. Civ. A. 75-120PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
DITTER, District Judge.
Alleging that he was unlawfully arrested and prosecuted, plaintiff instituted this civil rights action for damages against two individuals and two corporations. Before the court are motions on behalf of all four defendants, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and (6), to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. I conclude that the complaint must be dismissed with respect to the corporate defendants but not with regard to the individuals.
Taking as true the allegations of the complaint…
2Cases cited55 opinions
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Haines v. KernerSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Johnson v. GlickCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1973
- United States v. PriceSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
50 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Jones v. McElroyDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1977
- Pitrone v. MercadanteDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1976
- Faiaz v. Colgate UniversityDistrict Court, N.D. New York · 2014
- Fleck v. Trustees of the University of PennsylvaniaDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2014
- Rende v. RizzoDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1976
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.