§Why CasetextPricing

Hill v. Lincoln Financial Group et al

REPLY to Response to Motion re MOTION for Summary Judgment

9 Cited authorities

  1. Atkinson v. City of Mountain View

    709 F.3d 1201 (8th Cir. 2013)   Cited 480 times
    Holding that the "single incident" of excessive force in that case did not give rise to municipal liability

  2. Mann v. Yarnell

    497 F.3d 822 (8th Cir. 2007)   Cited 511 times
    Holding a plaintiff does not create a genuine issue of material fact by offering "a dark and often unintelligible video coupled with an entirely speculative and wishful recitation of events that is neither substantiated by anything displayed in the video nor by the memory of any observer or participant present at the altercation"

  3. Gregory v. City of Rogers

    974 F.2d 1006 (8th Cir. 1992)   Cited 412 times
    Holding a party must submit "sufficient probative evidence" that would permit a court to find in the party's favor "on more than mere speculation, conjecture, or fantasy" to survive a summary judgment motion

  4. Shaver v. Independent Stave Co.

    350 F.3d 716 (8th Cir. 2003)   Cited 216 times
    Holding that tester cases have been allowed to proceed under the ADA

  5. Mortensbak v. Butler

    102 F. Supp. 3d 1085 (D.S.D. 2015)   Cited 11 times
    Distinguishing the failure to warn a suspect who was actively resisting arrest

  6. Buck v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co.

    Case No. 4:12CV1879 SNLJ (E.D. Mo. Jan. 24, 2014)   Cited 4 times

    Case No. 4:12CV1879 SNLJ 01-24-2014 WILLIAM E. BUCK, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on defendant's motion for summary judgment (#30). This is an employment discrimination case alleging discrimination on the basis of race and retaliation. Plaintiff claims that defendant instigated an investigation of him because of race and terminated his employment because of race and a discrimination complaint

  7. Vitela v. Indymac Mortg. Servs.

    Case No. 4:13-CV-747-JAR (E.D. Mo. Jun. 24, 2014)   Cited 2 times

    Case No. 4:13-CV-747-JAR 06-24-2014 GEORGE and LAURA VITELA, Plaintiffs, v. INDYMAC MORTGAGE SERVICES, A DIVISION OF ONEWEST BANK, FSB, Defendant. JOHN A. ROSS MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on Defendant IndyMac Mortgage Services, a Division of OneWest Bank, FSB's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment ("Motion for Partial Summary Judgement"; ECF No. 19). In the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Defendant IndyMac Mortgage Services, a Division of OneWest Bank, FSB ("IndyMac")

  8. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 335,322 times   160 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

  9. Rule 6 - Computing and Extending Time; Time for Motion Papers

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 6   Cited 50,911 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "if the last day [of a period] is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the period continues to run until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday."