Legal Opinion

Hauf v. LIFE EXTENSION FOUNDATION

District Court, W.D. Michigan

Decided June 22, 2009No. 1:06-cv-00627PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

JANET T. NEFF, District Judge.

Pending before the Court are the parties’ competing motions for summary judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Crv. P. 56. Having reviewed the written submissions and accompanying exhibits, the Court finds that the relevant facts and arguments are adequately presented in these materials and that oral argument would not aid the decisional process. See W.D. Mich. LCivR 7.2(d). For the reasons that follow, the Court grants Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on All Remaining Counts in Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. 163). Consequently, the Court denies…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. Rosa Parks v. Laface RecordsCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2003
  4. Slusher v. CarsonCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2008
  5. Etw Corporation v. Jireh Publishing, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2003

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Virginia Hauf v. Life Extension FoundationCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2011

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API