§Why CasetextPricing

Doe v. The Pennsylvania State University et al

REPLY BRIEF re MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM and Certificate of Service

6 Cited authorities

  1. Polk County v. Dodson

    454 U.S. 312 (1981)   Cited 9,230 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a public defender does not act "under color of state law" because he "works under canons of professional responsibility that mandate his exercise of independent judgment on behalf of the client" and because there is an "assumption that counsel will be free of state control"

  2. Phillips v. County of Allegheny

    515 F.3d 224 (3d Cir. 2008)   Cited 16,815 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a district court need not permit a curative amendment if such amendment would be futile

  3. Hedges v. Musco

    204 F.3d 109 (3d Cir. 2000)   Cited 874 times
    Holding that District Courts "must" decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims "unless considerations of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties provide an affirmative justification for doing so."

  4. Borough of West Mifflin v. Lancaster

    45 F.3d 780 (3d Cir. 1995)   Cited 955 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "where the claim over which the district court has original jurisdiction is dismissed before trial, the district court must decline to decide the pendent state claims unless considerations of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties provide an affirmative justification for doing so."

  5. Emerich v. Philadelphia Center for Human Development, Inc.

    554 Pa. 209 (Pa. 1998)   Cited 88 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that duty may lie "where the defendant stands in a special relationship to either the person whose conduct needs to be controlled or in a relationship to the foreseeable victim of that conduct"

  6. Section 1367 - Supplemental jurisdiction

    28 U.S.C. § 1367   Cited 61,757 times   78 Legal Analyses
    Holding that in civil actions proceeding in federal court based solely on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the district court "shall not have supplemental jurisdiction" over "claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule . . . 24" or "over claims by persons . . seeking to intervene as plaintiffs under Rule 24," if "exercising supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of section 1332"