Legal Opinion
Durham v. Parks
District Court, D. Minnesota
Decided May 12, 1983No. Civ. 4-82-862PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
MILES W. LORD, Chief Judge.
The above-entitled matter is before this court upon defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This matter was taken under advisement after oral argument. Defendants’ motion states five grounds for dismissal: 1) The amended complaint contains no jurisdictional statement as required under Rule 8(a), Fed.R. Civ.P. 2) The first cause of action in the amended complaint against the University of Minnesota and Gregg Parks, sued in his official capacity, in which the plaintiff relies upon 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981…
2Cases cited36 opinions
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Edelman v. JordanSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Quern v. JordanSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Fitzpatrick v. BitzerSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Leadbetter v. RoseNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1991
- Hoeffner v. University of MinnesotaDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 1996
- O'CONNOR v. Peru State CollegeDistrict Court, D. Nebraska · 1985
- Stratton v. Medical Center Rehabilitation HospitalNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1996
- Pharmaceutical & Diagnostic Services, Inc. v. University of UtahDistrict Court, D. Utah · 1990
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.