Legal Opinion

Heideman v. PFL, Inc.

District Court, W.D. Missouri

Decided April 11, 1989No. 88-0010-CV-W-JWOPublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM AND ORDERS ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

JOHN W. OLIVER, Senior District Judge.

I

The above-captioned case pends on defendant’s motion for summary judgment in which the defendant asserts that all five counts 1 of plaintiffs’ complaint are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Plaintiffs maintain that “[tjhere are no statute of limitations issues in the instant litigation that properly may be resolved by summary judgment. Defendant has not carried its burden of showing that no genuine issue exists as to any material fact; to the contrary, plaintiffs have indicated the…

2Cases cited44 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. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  4. Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
  5. First Nat. Bank of Ariz. v. Cities Service Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1968

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Leo HEIDEMAN and Shirley Heideman, Appellants, v. PFL, INC., AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1990
  2. Elsevier v. DerwinskiUnited States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · 1991
  3. William L. McClure Jr. v. Zoecon, Inc., F/k/a Zoecon Industries, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1991
  4. Foutty v. Equifax Services, Inc.District Court, D. Kansas · 1991
  5. William L. McClure Jr. v. Zoecon, Inc., F/k/a Zoecon Industries, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1991

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

Powered by the Exa API