The Connelly Foundation v. The School District of Haverford Township
The CONNELLY FOUNDATION, Appellant, v. the SCHOOL DISTRICT OF HAVERFORD TOWNSHIP
Opinion
OPINION OF THE COURT PER CURIAM:
Appellant, The Connelly Foundation (Connelly) initiated suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to enjoin the condemnation of its land for school purposes by the school district of Haverford Township. The school district responded by filing a “Motion to Dismiss and For Summary Judgment” which raised the defense of res judicata. The school district attached to its motion the Preliminary Objection of Connelly to the original Declaration of Taking and the Opinion of the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, Pennsylvania, and the Opinion of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirming the findings of the Common Pleas Court. (Connelly had sought certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States and had failed.)
The district court, 326 F.Supp. 241 , concluded that the allegations contained in Connelly’s complaint had been completely and finally litigated in the Pennsylvania State courts and that the issues were res judicata and accordingly dismissed the complaint.
A review of the record shows beyond doubt that the conclusion of the District Court was correct.
The appellant contends in this appeal that res judicata cannot be raised by motion prior to Answer but this contention is without merit, see Williams v. Murdoch, 330 F.2d 745 at 749 (3d Cir. 1964); Hartmann v. Time, Inc., 166 F.2d 127 (3d Cir. 1948) and 2A J. Moore, Federal Practice, ¶ 8.28 at 1863 (2d ed. 1968).
The judgment of the court below is affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 3 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(finding appellant’s contention that res judicata cannot be raised by motion prior to Answer was without merit)
-
(res judicata may be raised in motion to dismiss prior to answer)
-
(“With respect to when a court may consider the preclusive effect of a state court judgment, although issue preclusion is an affirmative defense, it may be raised in a motion to dismiss under Federal Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6)”)
Cited by 38 cases
View all citing references →- U.S. Courts of Appeals7
- Federal District Courts28
- Bankruptcy Courts1
- State Highest Courts1
- State Appellate Courts1
Relies on it most ⓘ
- Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London that Subscribe to Certificate No. B1234HISINC2023, as Subrogee of H.C. Pody Company v. IAG Construction, Inc. and Pennoni Associates, Inc.
- Dickens v. Puryear
- Overseas Motors, Inc. v. Import Motors Limited, Inc.
- Hauptmann v. Wilentz
- Lawrence W. Lambert v. David R. Conrad and Martha Carlson
- M & M Stone Co. v. Pennsylvania
Most recent
- SPENCER v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA
- Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London that Subscribe to Certificate No. B1234HISINC2023, as Subrogee of H.C. Pody Company v. IAG Construction, Inc. and Pennoni Associates, Inc.
- Jeffrey S. Tomcik v. Highmark Health, a Pennsylvania Corporation
- ALLEN v. STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION AT SOMERSET DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
- MELTON v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA
- GAGE v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.