Joseph H. Levenstein v. Bernard Salafsky, Patricia A. Gill, and David C. Broski, in Their Individual Capacities

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that constructively discharged medical school professor who essentially alleged that procedures were “a sham through and through” suffi- ciently alleged a due process violation
• holding that the narrow exception “is not intended to grant litigants license to ignore the distinction between motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment.”
• holding that it was within the district court’s discretion to treat motion as motion to dismiss where judgment on qualified immunity should be decided as early in the case as possible
• holding that it was within the district court’s discretion to treat motion as motion to dismiss where judgment on qualified immunity should be decided as early in the case as possible
• holding that when a party relies on evidence outside of the complaint to support a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, “the court must either convert the 12(b)(6) motion into a motion for summary judgment” or “exclude the documents” and “continued under Rule 12.”
• describing that rule as “a narrow exception aimed at cases interpreting, for example, a contract.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).