Legal Opinion
McCullough v. Consolidated Rail Corp.
District Court, N.D. Illinois
Decided March 3, 1992No. 90 C 1226PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
NORGLE, District Judge.
Before the court is Consolidated Rail Corporation’s (“Conrail”) motion to dismiss the amended complaint of Wortham McCullough, Robert McCullough, and Gerald Gore (collectively “plaintiffs”). For reasons detailed below, the motion is granted.
FACTS
Plaintiffs filed their complaint in March, 1990, alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. for conduct occurring in 1983 and 1984. On December 4, 1991, plaintiffs were granted leave to amend their complaint to add claims under the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (the “Act”). Conrail moved to dismiss the amended complaint…
2Cases cited50 opinions
- Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Marbury v. MadisonSupreme Court of the United States · 1803
- Price Waterhouse v. HopkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Patterson v. McLean Credit UnionSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Bowen v. Georgetown University HospitalSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
45 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Crumley v. Delaware State CollegeDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 1992
- Aiken v. Bucks Ass'n for Retarded Citizens, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1992
- Ribando v. United Airlines, Inc.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1992
- Kennedy v. FritschDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1992
- Craig v. Ohio Department of Administrative ServicesDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · 1992
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.