Legal Opinion
Schofield v. Gilland
District Court, E.D. Tennessee
Decided July 31, 1975No. CIV-2-75-70PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
NEESE, District Judge.
The plaintiffs claim that the defendants, acting under color of state law, deprived them of their federally-protected civil rights, both directly and conspiratorily, “ * . * * by passing laws singling out the plaintiffs for discriminatory treatment * * * ’’ in connection with their applying for placement in Tusculum, Tennessee of a mobile home and a mobile home park. 28 U.S.C. § 1343; 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985. The defendants moved for a more definite statement of such claim, on the ground that such is so vague that they cannot be required…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Roger H. Mason v. Owens-Illinois, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1975
- Board of Education of the City School District of the City of Cincinnati v. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Region 5Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1976
- Brown v. HipshireTennessee Supreme Court · 1977
- State of Tennessee Ex Rel. Davis v. HartmanDistrict Court, E.D. Tennessee · 1969
- Dennis v. Begley Drug Co. of Tennessee, Inc.District Court, E.D. Tennessee · 1971
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Alsop v. Alaska (In Re Alsop)United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Alaska · 1981
- Berndt v. StinsonDistrict Court, E.D. Tennessee · 1982
- Mullins v. MacmahanDistrict Court, E.D. Tennessee · 1981