Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • MacFarlane v. Rich, 1st Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    26 views3 pages
    This document is a court opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit regarding a case between James MacFarlane and Beryl Rich. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of MacFarlane's complaint for failing to adequately allege state action and failing to state a valid cause of action under New Hampshire law because the contested alimony order had not been overturned in state court. MacFarlane conceded that the district court properly dismissed the complaint on these two grounds.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1998-10-05 Precedential Status: Precedential Docket: 98-1424

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is a court opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit regarding a case between James MacFarlane and Beryl Rich. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of MacFarlane's complaint for failing to adequately allege state action and failing to state a valid cause of action under New Hampshire law because the contested alimony order had not been overturned in state court. MacFarlane conceded that the district court properly dismissed the complaint on these two grounds.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    26 views3 pages

    MacFarlane v. Rich, 1st Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a court opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit regarding a case between James MacFarlane and Beryl Rich. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of MacFarlane's complaint for failing to adequately allege state action and failing to state a valid cause of action under New Hampshire law because the contested alimony order had not been overturned in state court. MacFarlane conceded that the district court properly dismissed the complaint on these two grounds.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 3

    USCA1 Opinion

    [NOT FOR PUBLICATION--NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]


    United States Court of Appeals
    For the First Circuit

    No. 98-1424

    JAMES MACFARLANE,

    Plaintiff, Appellant,

    v.

    BERYL RICH,

    Defendant, Appellee.

    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

    FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

    [Hon. Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr., U.S. District Judge]

    Before

    Selya, Stahl and Lynch,


    Circuit Judges.

    James MacFarlane on brief pro se.

    Diane M. Gorrow and Soule, Leslie, Kidder, Sayward & Loughmanon Motion

    October 13, 1998

    Per Curiam.
    district court's dismissal of his complaint pursuant to
    Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).

    MacFarlane concedes that the district

    court properly dismissed the complaint on the grounds that it


    1) fails to adequately allege state action and 2) fails to
    state a cause of action under New Hampshire law because the
    contested alimony order has not yet been overturned in state
    court. We affirm the dismissal of the complaint on those two
    grounds. See Loc. R. 27.1.

    James

    You might also like