Jones v. Miller, 1942 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1751 (W.D. Pa. 1942). · Go Syfert
Jones v. Miller, 1942 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1751 (W.D. Pa. 1942). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
18 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 11 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Phoenician Mediterranean Villa, LLC v. Swope (In Re J & S Properties, LLC) (ca3, 2017-09-28) · Strongest negative: Molloy v. Mount (ctd, 1947-12-09)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "but see" Molloy v. Mount
D. Conn. · 1947 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see McRanie v. Palmer, D.C.Mass.1942, 2 F.R.D. 479 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Phoenician Mediterranean Villa, LLC v. Swope (In Re J & S Properties, LLC) (2×)
3rd Cir. · 2017 · confidence medium
In such cases, “a bankruptcy trustee is ordinarily entitled to quasi-judicial immunity from suit . . . for actions taken in his official capacity.” In re McKenzie, 716 F.3d at 413 ; see In re Mailman Steam Carpet Cleaning, 196 F.3d at 7 n.4; Ziegler v. Pitney, 139 F.2d 595, 596 (2d Cir. 1943); McRanie v. Palmer, 2 F.R.D. 479, 481 (D.
cited Cited as authority (rule) In Re Goodrich
Bankr. D. Mass. · 1997 · confidence medium
See Valdes v. Feliciano, 267 F.2d 91, 94 (1st Cir.1959); McRanie v. Palmer, 2 F.R.D. 479, 481 (D.Mass.1942).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
JONES
v.
MILLER
No. 2168.
District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania.
Sep 14, 1942.
1942 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1751
Carl E. dock and Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay, all of Pittsburgh, Pa., for plaintiff., Miller & Nesbitt and Oliver K. Eaton, all of Pittsburgh, Pa., for defendants.
McVicar.
Published
McVICAR, District Judge.

This action is before us now on defendants’ motion under Rule 12(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, to dismiss, on the ground that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

At the oral argument, defendants’ attorney argued two reasons in support of the motion, the principal reason being res judicata. Under Rule 8(c) res judicata is deemed an affirmative defense. The complaint in this action avers facts meagerly which defendants rely upon as res judicata, but these facts are not sufficiently averred so that the Court can determine whether the same constitutes res judicata or not. I am of the opinion that the facts in this case should be more fully developed before the questions involved are passed upon by this Court; and for the reason that the Court cannot say under Rule 12(b) that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the motion to dismiss should be refused.