Summary judgment

I. Introduction and Standard for Opposition to Summary Judgment Crowell Academy, Inc. and Arturo Gomez, (hereinafter, collectively "Crowell") were grossly negligent and used willful misconduct in their responsibilities involving the fencing club. The bargaining power of Crowell was so grossly unequal so as to put Lajuana Barnett at the mercy of Crowell's negligence. Lastly, the exculpatory clause contained in the release form (see release form) is void as against public policy. Consequently

The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal. The court concluded that even though there were “identical floor areas, number of parking spaces, the provision of a public plaza, the use of public art, and the orientation of the buildings to ensure water views,” many of these were standard features for high-rise developments and could not be protected because they were simply abstract ideas. Furthermore, there were differences between the two designs including the dimensions of a glass roof on the

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Per the Minton’s Evidence Code and the Daubert Standard, does Alice Dillworth’s educational and practical background, knowledge of ice hockey injuries, and research on prosthetics qualify her as admissible to assist Life Renewal Inc. in determining a fact at issue? 2. Did the warning of Life Renewal Inc.’s Phoenix I provide users with proper instructions for what instruments are permitted to be used with the product, and adequately warn users that the product was not intended

(Appellee) and the defendants, Patrick Gibbs; and Stand Alone Properties, L.L.C., d/b/a O’Malley’s Tavern (Appenllants) was the subject of a Summary Judgment Motion filed on behalf of the

SUMMARY Using someone else’s name for a fake profile, misrepresents their identity and can damage a person’s reputation. Tamsen Drake (Plaintiff) values her identity when it comes to her work as an artist. As an artist, Drake creates short animated films for her viewers. Drake does not join the bandwagon of creating a social media profile of her artistic work, or for others to find out information about her. In response to Drake not acquiring a social media profile, Michael Schultz (Defendant)

MEG MURRY SHOULD BE GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGEMENT BECAUSE TO EFFECTIVELY ANALYSIS THE SUBSTAINAL SIMILARITIES BETWEEN BOOKS WHEN THE ELEMENTS UNDER SPECULATION ARE UNPROCTABLE; THE DISCERNING OBSERVER IS MOST APPROPRIATE. 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

The District Court erred in granting summary judgement for Defendant-Appellee Friendly Grocers by declaring that employers are only required to reasonably accommodate a disabled person through consideration of reassignment. The District Court erred in granting summary judgment for Friendly Grocers. The plain language of the ADA mandates reasonable accommodation requires reassignment to a vacant position. Under the 42 U.S.C § 12112(a), employers have duty to not discriminate against any individuals

CASE: PIECE OF AMERICA V. GRAY LOON MARKETING CITATION PIECE OF AMERICA, Appellant (Defendant below), v. GRAY LOON OUTDOOR MARKETING GROUP, INC., Appellee (Plaintiff below). 906 N.E.2d 805; 2009 Ind. LEXIS 465; 69 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 71 FACTS Piece of America was a limited partnership that was composed of three general partners including F.W. Splittorff, Dennis Conwell, and Robert Aswell. The company offered a uniqueness bundles: one-square-inch parcels of land in each of the fifty states

Based on the information provided, Oliver’s allegations were not supported with documentation, but merely opinion and hearsay. In Oliver’s affidavit, she stated that she “read” in the discharge summary that Dr. Brock was consulted and assisted with treatment. Although the supporting documentation of the previous statement is important, the more pressing issue becomes whether a doctor-patient relationship was formed in order to support the allegations

Now through undersigned counsel, come Defendant, Lauris Hollis ("Defendant"), who respectfully request that this Court grant their Motion for Summary Judgment dismissing the Plaintiff 's claims against him. Defendant move this Court for a Summary Judgment on the grounds that the Plaintiff has no cause of action, no right of action or no interest in the plaintiff to institute the suit and it should be dismissed. UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS 1. The Plaintiff filed suit on April 7, 2015, in Livingston