Legal Opinion
Armor v. Michelin Tire Corp.
District Court, S.D. West Virginia
Decided April 23, 1996No. Civil Action 6:95-779PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
HADEN, Chief Judge.
Pending is Defendants’ motion for Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiffs have responded and Defendants have replied. The Court GRANTS the motion.
The standard used to determine whether a motion for summary judgment should be granted or denied has been stated by our Court of Appeals as follows:
A moving party is entitled to summary judgment ‘if the pleading, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to material fact and that the moving party is…
2Cases cited23 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
- Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Shaw v. StroudCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1994
- Charbonnages De France v. Frank B. Smith, Juanita Smith, Frank Smith, Jr., Smith Brothers Construction Company and Continental Coal Sales CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1979
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Dean v. Pilgrim's Pride Corp.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2005
- Gloria Dean v. Pilgrim's Pride CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2005
- Harodite Industries, Inc. v. Warren Electric Corp.Supreme Court of Rhode Island · 2011
- Harodite Industries, Inc. v. Warren Electric Corp.Supreme Court of Rhode Island · 2011
- Michelle Nicole Evans v. Daniel NorthWest Virginia Supreme Court · 2017
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.