§Why CasetextPricing

Martin et al v. City of Chicago et al

REPLY

31 Cited authorities

  1. Grieveson v. Anderson

    538 F.3d 763 (7th Cir. 2008)   Cited 1,908 times
    Holding 4 incidents over about 11 months involving only plaintiff was insufficient to show a widespread practice or custom

  2. Waldridge v. American Hoechst Corp.

    24 F.3d 918 (7th Cir. 1994)   Cited 2,993 times
    Holding that “a party opposing summary judgment may not rely on allegations in her pleadings.”

  3. Bordelon v. Chicago Sch. Reform Bd. of Trustees

    233 F.3d 524 (7th Cir. 2000)   Cited 1,403 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the "district court is entitled to limit its analysis of the facts on summary judgment to evidence that is properly identified and supported in the parties' [Local Rule 56.1] statements"

  4. Gentry v. Duckworth

    65 F.3d 555 (7th Cir. 1995)   Cited 1,352 times
    Holding that party claiming issue preclusion must prove resolution of issue was essential to prior judgment

  5. Ciomber v. Cooperative

    527 F.3d 635 (7th Cir. 2008)   Cited 534 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that because the non-movant's Local Rule 56.1(b)(B) response "contained several extremely long, argumentative paragraphs, and in those paragraphs [the non-movant] simultaneously denied the veracity of [the movant's] proposed material facts and presented additional facts of his own..., the district court did not err by refusing to consider the facts he proposed"

  6. Koszola v. Board of Educ., City of Chicago

    385 F.3d 1104 (7th Cir. 2004)   Cited 591 times
    Holding that district court did not abuse discretion in refusing to consider facts asserted outside of the parties' Rule 56.1 statements

  7. Yang v. Hardin

    37 F.3d 282 (7th Cir. 1994)   Cited 785 times
    Holding that although the plaintiff's complaint "fail[ed] to explicitly specify the existence of an opportunity for [the officer] to have intervened, the facts demonstrate several opportunities during which [the officer] could have acted"

  8. Malec v. Sanford

    191 F.R.D. 581 (N.D. Ill. 2000)   Cited 649 times
    Holding that where a party offers a legal conclusion in a statement of fact, the Court will not consider that statement

  9. Steen v. Myers

    486 F.3d 1017 (7th Cir. 2007)   Cited 484 times
    Holding "that summary judgment is 'not a dress rehearsal or practice run; it is the put up or shut up moment in a lawsuit, when a party must show what evidence it has that would convince a trier of fact to accept its version of events'" (quoting Hammel v. Eau Galle Cheese Factory, 407 F.3d 852, 859 (7th Cir. 2005))

  10. Jenkins v. Bartlett

    487 F.3d 482 (7th Cir. 2007)   Cited 423 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, in a "failure-to-train" claim brought under § 1983, "a municipality may be directly liable for constitutional violations by its officers when the municipality evinces a deliberate indifference to the rights of the plaintiff by failing to train adequately its officers to prevent the violation ... ."

  11. Rule 602 - Need for Personal Knowledge

    Fed. R. Evid. 602   Cited 3,507 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Stating that " witness may testify only if evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter"