8 Cited authorities

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
477 U.S. 242 (1986) Cited 236,081 times 38 Legal Analyses
Holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if "the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party"
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett
477 U.S. 317 (1986) Cited 216,195 times 40 Legal Analyses
Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"
Adler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
144 F.3d 664 (10th Cir. 1998) Cited 5,054 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that arguments inadequately presented in the opening brief are waived
Wright ex rel. Trust Co. v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc.
259 F.3d 1226 (10th Cir. 2001) Cited 1,116 times
Stating that "post-judgment motions filed within ten days of the final judgment should, where possible, be construed as 59(e) motions to avoid otherwise endless hassles over proper characterization"
Conaway v. Smith
853 F.2d 789 (10th Cir. 1988) Cited 1,360 times
Holding that speech concerning "substandard electrical work, which, [plaintiff] felt, posed danger to public life, health, and safety" was on matters of public concern
Burdett v. Harrah's Kansas Casino Corp.
294 F. Supp. 2d 1215 (D. Kan. 2003) Cited 21 times
Holding that the debt collector “is not entitled to summary judgment ... just because the [debtor] did not dispute the validity or request verification of the debts”
Dillon v. Riffel-Kuhlmann
574 F. Supp. 2d 1221 (D. Kan. 2008) Cited 13 times
Granting summary judgment for the defendant law firm because the court found “no support for the proposition that pursuing a collection action without serving the debtor constitutes a violation of the FDCPA.”
Rule 56 - Summary Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Cited 328,543 times 158 Legal Analyses
Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

Martin v. Kansas Counselors, Inc.

8 Cited authorities

Holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if "the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party"

Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"

Holding that arguments inadequately presented in the opening brief are waived

Stating that "post-judgment motions filed within ten days of the final judgment should, where possible, be construed as 59(e) motions to avoid otherwise endless hassles over proper characterization"

Holding that speech concerning "substandard electrical work, which, [plaintiff] felt, posed danger to public life, health, and safety" was on matters of public concern

Holding that the debt collector “is not entitled to summary judgment ... just because the [debtor] did not dispute the validity or request verification of the debts”

Granting summary judgment for the defendant law firm because the court found “no support for the proposition that pursuing a collection action without serving the debtor constitutes a violation of the FDCPA.”

Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit