Material Fact 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).

* 1. excusable default, if such motion is made within one year after service of a copy of the judgment or order with written notice of its entry upon the moving party, or, if the moving party has entered the judgment or order, within one year after such entry; or

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.

On May 10, 2012, Johnny drove into town to barter the swamp creatures he traps for gas and beer. He pulled into the local gas station and saw the sign read $4.42/gallon when he remembered it at $1.40/gallon in 2001. Thinking he would do the owner a favor, Johnny saw a ladder in a nearby house and used it to change the gasoline sign, at the same time leaving the ladder touching an uninsultated part of the store's electric sign. When Johnny tried to trade one of the swamp creatures, a nutria, the ower of the gasoline station/store called authorities because even possessing nutria was now a crime. Johnny was arrested, and as he was being taken away, the ladder's owner showed up wanting to know who had his ladder. When the ladder's owner grabbed the ladder to take it home, he was unfortunately electrocuted. Finally, prior to arresting Johnny, the deputy purchased gas, but demanded it be at the sign's rate of $1.42.

The cashier stated that the couple had smelled like gas. She also asked them if they had been working on cars. The cashier stated that the couple did not answer the question, and they asked if they could have change for a $10. Robert then told the cashier to take all of the money out of the cash register. He pulled out a water bottle filled with gasoline and a lighter. He told the woman that if she did not give him the money, then he would light her on fire.

The Question: Has the Plaintiff, Linda D. Daugherty, included the operative facts for cause of action in her claim against the Defendants, Casual Lifestyles Realty, Inc. and Rauleigh J. Ringer, or has said Plaintiff insufficiently stated the facts, therefore making indefinite allegations and validating the move for a more definite statement? Or, is it that, the mechanisms of discovery could be an open alternative to the Defendants, which would aid in gathering any information needed for the defense to frame a response to said Plaintiff, therefore invalidating the Motion pursuant to Rule 12(E) of Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure?

The Appellate Court reasoned that the Trial Court’s finding that the husband transferred the property to tenancy by the entirety solely to avoid a judgment creditor was not against the manifest weight of the evidence because

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.

The NCAA moved to dismiss this complaint for summary judgment and the result was that the district court granted this motion.

* Motions to Dismiss - These are the defense's response or answers to the plaintiffs complaint. The responses are typically filed as motions and are intended to dismiss the claims expressed in the complaint.

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

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.

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)