Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers International Union v. Amoco Oil Co.
District Court, S.D. Texas
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
KENT, District Judge.
Before the Court are the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. For the reasons stated below, the Court is of the opinion that Plaintiff’s motion should be GRANTED and Defendant’s motion should be DENIED.
I
Summary judgment is appropriate if no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. A fact is material if its resolution in favor of one party might affect the outcome of the suit under governing law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510, 91 L.Ed.2d 202…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- United Steelworkers v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1960
- Morissette v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1952
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Oil, Chemical & Atomic v. Amoco OilCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1993
- Parker v. MSB Energy, Inc. (In Re MSB Energy, Inc.)United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Texas · 2010