THE CONNELLY FOUNDATION, APPELLANT,
v.
THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF HAVERFORD TOWNSHIP
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the doctrine of res judicata applies even when raised by a motion to dismiss prior to filing an answer.
The Connelly Foundation sued to enjoin condemnation of its land. The school district moved to dismiss and for summary judgment, asserting res judicata…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Motion To Dismiss cases and more on FLexlaw
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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lambert v. Conrad, 536 F.2d 1183 (7th Cir. 1976)
Authorities Cited
- Hartmann v. Time, Inc., 166 F.2d 127 (3d Cir. 1947)
- Cora Hubbard Williams v. Cora Williams Murdoch & Commonwealth Bank & Tr. Co., 330 F.2d 745 (3d Cir. 1964)