Legal Opinion
Roniger v. McCall
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided September 15, 1998No. 97 Civ. 8009(RWS)PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
SWEET; District Judge.
Defendants H. Carl McCall (“McCall”) and Rosemary Scanlon (“Scanlon”) (collectively, the “Defendants”), have moved pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss this action on the grounds that the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution bars the claims against Defendants in their official capacities, Defendants are immune from suit in their individual capacities on the claims alleged pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the Complaint fails to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2).
For the reasons set forth below, the motion is denied in…
2Cases cited47 opinions
- Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs.Supreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Harlow v. FitzgeraldSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Will v. Michigan Department of State PoliceSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Scheuer v. RhodesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
42 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Quinn v. Nassau County Police DepartmentDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1999
- Dilworth v. GoldbergDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2012
- Cunningham v. PFL Life InsuranceDistrict Court, N.D. Iowa · 1999
- Tardd v. Brookhaven National LaboratoryDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 2006
- Falinski v. KuntzDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1999
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.