# Mark v. Borough of Hatboro

> Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · March 31, 1995 · 51 F.3d 1137

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9815935

## Case

- **Full name:** John D. MARK, Appellant, v. BOROUGH OF HATBORO, Thomas E. McMackin, Charles J. Acker, Bucky L. Clark, Robert S. Doorley, Dottie Newsome, John G. Younglove, Esquire, Alfred F. Zollers, Robert Stauch, Michael Barger, Roy Thomas, Joseph Reading, John Sine, William Marley III, Enterprise Fire Company
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
- **Decided:** March 31, 1995
- **Citations:** 51 F.3d 1137; 1995 WL 138433
- **Opinion:** On rehearing
- **Judges:** Greenberg, Sarokin, Weis, Sloviter, Becker, Stapleton, Mansmann, Hutchinson, Scirica, Cowen, Nygaard, Alito, Roth, Lewis, McKee
- **Cited by:** 207 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9815935

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- affirming that “constitutional standards are invoked only when it can be said that the [government] is responsible for the specific conduct of which the plaintiff complains.”
- noting that private utility companies, private schools funded with state dollars, and private contractors operating a state school bus program were all found to not have met the public function test
- finding the relationship element of state-created danger unsatisfied “[w]hen the alleged unlawful act is a policy directed at the public at large”

## Opinion text

SUR PETITION FOR REHEARING
April 28, 1995
Before: SLOVITER, Chief Judge, and BECKER, STAPLETON, MANSMANN, GREENBERG, HUTCHINSON, SCIRICA, COWEN, NYGAARD, ALITO, ROTH, LEWIS, McKEE, SAROKIN, and WEIS, Circuit Judges.
The petition for rehearing filed by the appellant, John D. Mark, in the above captioned matter having been submitted to the judges who participated in the decision of this court and to all the other available circuit judges of the court in regular active service, and no judge who concurred in the decision having asked for rehearing, and a majority of the circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service not having voted for rehearing by the court in banc, the petition for rehearing is denied.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9815935. Public record. Not legal advice.