Individual Court Case Study

For summary judgment to be granted, the movant must show “that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The appellate standard of review for reviewing summary judgment orders in this case is the de novo standard, as this is a decision regarding “mixed questions of law and fact”. Barr v. Lafon, 538 F.3d 554, 562 (6th Cir. 2008).

The rule for determining a motion for directed verdict requires the trial judge and the reviewing court on appeal to look to all of the evidence, taking the strongest legitimate view of it in favor of the opponent of the motion and allowing all reasonable inferences from it in his favor. The court must discard all countervailing evidence, and if there is then any dispute as to any material determinative evidence or any doubt as to the conclusion to be drawn from the whole evidence, the motion must be denied. Tennessee Farmers Mut.

The appeals court ruled that the plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant’s behavior was willful and wanton conduct.

The appeals court ruled that the plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant’s behavior was willful and wanton conduct.

DISPOSITION:  [**1]  Defendant 's motion to compel Brennan to arbitrate denied. Brennan 's cross-motion to strike the defense of arbitration and stay arbitration granted.

The district court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s Americans with Disability Act claim. The plaintiff’s is not estopped by her SSDI and long term disability claims.The court foreclosed to grant the plaintiff new trial. The appellate court the district court’s ruling.

The motion for partial summary for the plaintiff was denied by the court and the objection was overruled without prejudice to raise the issue for consideration at trial.

Reviewing the dispositions, the court denies plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment on both its first and second causes of action….

GSMC and Ocwen objected to the statement and the objection was sustained. “[W]ith respect to evidentiary rulings on admissibility generally and rulings with respect to relevance specifically, the trial judge is vested with wide, wide discretion.” Schmitt v. State, 140 Md. App. 1, 17 (2001). Here, Sucklal was prohibited from testifying as to the contents of the correspondence because Md. Rule 5-1002 requires that “[t]o prove the content of a writing . . ., the original writing . . . is required, except as otherwise provided in these rules or by statute.” Likewise, Sucklal was prohibited from testifying as to statements made by the author of the correspondence because Md. Rule 5-802 generally prohibits the admission of “a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” Md. Rule 5-801(c). Finally, litigants must be afforded “a reasonable opportunity to present material that may be pertinent to the court’s decision as required by Maryland Rule 2-501.” Balt. Street Builders v. Stewart, 186 Md. App. 684, 691 (2009). Sucklal, however, was not denied an opportunity to oppose GSMC and Ocwen’s motion for summary judgement. Indeed, Sucklal failed to respond to the motion for summary

The Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit at the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia. The verdict of the jury found the Defendant liable and was in favor of the Plaintiffs. Defendant then filed a motion for a new trial for judgment as a matter of law.

Summary judgment is a procedural device used during civil litigation to promptly and expeditiously dispose of a case without a trial. It is used when there is no dispute as to the material facts of the case and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter law. And the veredict against the other defendant was $30,000 while the plaintiff asked for $40,000.

COMES NOW, Defendant, Martin Katz, by and through his attorneys M. David Stallings, Esquire, Bryant S. Green, Esquire, and Niles, Barton & Wilmer, LLP, hereby files this Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dismiss Count 1 of Counter Complaint, and in support thereof states as follows:

These interrogatories, and answers hereto, are to include and are to be based upon, information in the possession of or gathered by you, your agents, representatives, investigators, attorneys, and

The respondents, NFL, moved for a motion of summary judgment on the Section 1 claim, arguing it was immune from antitrust liability as a single entity. In response, American Needle sought a continuance and asked the U.S. District Court to allow discovery, a motion opposed by the

A motion for summary judgment may be granted by a district court when the similarity concerns only uncopyrightable elements of alleged infringed work or when no reasonable trier of fact could find the works substantially similar. (Castle, Walker) When the works contain both protectable and unprotectable elements, the examination must be more discerning, extracting the unprotectable elements from the works and asking whether the protectable elements, standing alone, are substantially similar. (knit, Tufenkian). The discerning ordinary observer test must be applied in conjunction with the total concept and feel where after the unprotectable elements are eliminated from consideration an assessment of the total concept and feel of the works at issue. (bOISSON) Only when the alleged infringed work consumes protectable elements does the ordinary observer apply; here if an average lay observer would recognize the alleged copy as having been appropriated from the copyrighted work would be substantially similar. (boisson, knit) After the ordinary observer test or the more discerning inquiry is applied, the works are to be examined by the total concept and feel. (KINT)