Legal Opinion
Rosquist v. Jarrat Construction Corp.
District Court, D. New Jersey
Decided September 6, 1983No. Civ. A. 82-3703PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
STERN, District Judge.
Plaintiff pro se George Rosquist moves pursuant to Rule 60(b), Fed.R.Civ.P., to vacate the Court’s order of November 16,1982 dismissing his complaint for want of subject matter jurisdiction. After having considered the matter pursuant to Rule 78, Fed.R.Civ.P., we have determined that the dismissal order is correct. Accordingly, the motion to vacate the judgment is denied. 1
FACTS
On November 4, 1982, plaintiff filed a 24-page complaint naming 22 defendants. In Count I, plaintiff alleges that defendants Jarrat Construction Corp., A.B.A. Realty Co., Abraham Tauber,…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Haines v. KernerSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. FeldmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Stump v. SparkmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Griffin v. BreckenridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Fulson v. City of ColumbusDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · 1992
- Delbridge v. Off. of Pub. Def.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1989
- Randolph v. LipscherDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1986
- Diulus v. Churchill Valley Country ClubDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1985
- Hermandad-Union De Empleados Del Fondo Del Seguro Del Estado v. MongeDistrict Court, D. Puerto Rico · 1985