Legal Opinion

PARAGOULD CABLEVISION v. City of Paragould, Ark.

District Court, E.D. Arkansas

Decided May 9, 1990No. J-C-90-14PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER

EISELE, Chief Judge.

In this action plaintiff seeks injunctive relief for alleged violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2 (1976), the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution- as well as the laws of the State of Arkansas. At issue before the Court are defendant City of Paragould and its Light and Water Commission’s Motions to Dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Plaintiff has responded. The Court will grant the motions for the reasons indicated in the body of this Order.

I. THE STANDARD ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS

Under a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to…

2Cases cited30 opinions

Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
United Mine Workers of America v. GibbsSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
Scheuer v. RhodesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
Carnegie-Mellon University v. CohillSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
Buckley v. ValeoSupreme Court of the United States · 1976

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

3Cited by2 opinions

Paragould Cablevision, Inc. v. City Of ParagouldCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1991
Paragould Cablevision, Inc. v. City of ParagouldCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1991