Legal Opinion
Murph v. State
New York Court of Claims
Decided February 8, 1979No. Claim No. 62481PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*325OPINION OF THE COURT
Gerard M. Weisberg, J.
The State has moved to dismiss this claim contending that it is jurisdictionally defective, that it is untimely and that it fails to state a cause of action. (CPLR 3211, subd [a], pars 2, 5, 7.) Claimant appearing pro se has filed a petition to transfer the claim to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, to be joined with an action presently pending in that court. This petition is brought under the supposed authority of section 1506 of title 28 of the United States Code.
The claim is for false arrest, false imprisonment,…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Stump v. SparkmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Hans v. LouisianaSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- In Re AyersSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
- Fitts v. McGheeSupreme Court of the United States · 1899
- Fisher v. State of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1961
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Poysa v. StateNew York Court of Claims · 1979
- Johnson v. StateNew York Court of Claims · 1995
- Rabinovici v. StateNew York Court of Claims · 1981
- Murph v. StateNew York Court of Claims · 1980