Doe v. Groody

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
    
Court Documents
Opinion of the Court
Dissenting Opinion
Alito
Wikipedia-logo-v2.svg Wikipedia article

361 F.3d 232

JOHN DOE, Parent and Natural guardian of Mary Doe, a minor; JANE DOE, Parent and Natural Guardian of Mary Doe, a minor, and in her own right; RICHARD DOE

v.

JOSEPH GROODY; MICHAEL AULENBACH; ADAM BERMODIN; SUSAN JONES; BOROUGH OF ASHLAND; ROBERT PHILLIPS; JEFFREY WALCOTT; R. P. SCHAEFFER; BOROUGH OF SCHUYLKILL HAVEN; JACK SHEARIN; BOROUGH OF FRACKVILLE; ROBERT BRUCE, Office of the Attorney General, Bureau of Narcotics Investigation (BNI), Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL, BUREAU OF NARCOTICS INVESTIGATION (BNI), COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA; SCHUYLKILL COUNTY DRUG TASK FORCE, County of Schuylkill, Joseph Groody; Adam Bermodin; Robert Phillips; Robert Bruce, Appellants

No. 02-4532

United States Court of Appeals,
Third Circuit.


September 15, 2003, Argued

March 19, 2004, Filed


US Supreme Court certiorari denied by Groody v. Doe, 2004 U.S. LEXIS 6605 (U.S., Oct. 4, 2004)

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (Dist. Court No. O0-cv-00356) District Judge: Honorable James F. McClure, Jr.

For Appellees: Andrew A. Solomon (Argued), Malvern, PA, John M. Dodig, Master, Weinstein, Schnoll & Dodig, Philadelphia, PA.

For Appellants: John G. Knorr, III, Esq. (Argued), Office of Attorney General of Pennsylvania, Department of Justice, Harrisburg, PA.

Before: ALITO, AMBRO and CHERTOFF, Circuit Judges.

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).