Legal Opinion
Doe v. Borough of Barrington
District Court, D. New Jersey
Decided January 29, 1990No. Civ. A. 88-2642 (SSB)PublishedCited by 58 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BROTMAN, District Judge.
Presently before the court is the motion of plaintiffs Jane Doe and her children 1 for partial summary judgment against defendants Borough of Runnemede (“Runnemede”) and Officer Smith. These defendants have cross-moved for summary judgment. This case presents novel issues concerning the privacy rights of individuals who have contracted Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (“AIDS”) and the privacy rights of their family members. For the reasons stated in this opinion, plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment against defendants Runnemede and Smith will be granted.…
2Cases cited35 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs.Supreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Harlow v. FitzgeraldSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by58 opinions
- Doe v. PoritzSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1995
- Harris v. ThigpenCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1991
- John Doe v. Joan DelieCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2001
- Carmela Mares v. Conagra Poultry Company, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1992
- Faya v. AlmarazCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1993
53 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.