Ciaffoni v. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
ZIEGLER, District Judge.
Presently before the court are the Rule 12(b) motions of defendants to dismiss the original and amended complaints for want of justiciability, standing, ripeness and mootness. We hold that the complaints of plaintiffs fail to state a case or controversy as required by Article III and therefore the motions of defendants to dismiss must be granted. 1 We also hold that assuming the subsequent developments in state court have not rendered the action moot, the teachings of Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 639 (1971) require this court to…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Younger v. HarrisSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Warth v. SeldinSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Rizzo v. GoodeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Middlesex County Ethics Committee v. Garden State Bar Ass'nSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Murphy v. HuntSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Cohen v. OasinDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1994
- Appeal of Ciaffoni (Concetta)Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1983
- Vizvary v. VignatiDistrict Court, D. Rhode Island · 1990
- Gemini Lake v. Edward Brennan, et al.District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2026
- Glen-Gery Corp. v. Lower Heidelberg TownshipDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1985