Legal Opinion
Ramsdell v. Huhtamaki, Inc.
District Court, D. Maine
Decided January 15, 2014No. 1:12-cv-233-GZSPublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
GEORGE Z. SINGAL, District Judge.
Before the Court is Defendant Huhtamaki, Inc.’s (“Huhtamaki”) Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 39). The Motion has been fully briefed in accordance with the Court’s May 26, 2013 Order & Report of Conference (ECF No. 26). For the reasons stated herein, the Court GRANTS IN PART & DENIES IN PART the Motion.
I. LEGAL STANDARD
A party is entitled to summary judgment if, on the record before the Court, it appears “that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of…
2Cases cited36 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
- Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. WhiteSupreme Court of the United States · 2006
- National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. MorganSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
- University of Tex. Southwestern Medical Center v. NassarSupreme Court of the United States · 2013
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Benson v. Wal-Mart Stores East L.P.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2021
- Charette v. St. John Valley Soil & Water Conservation Dist.District Court, D. Maine · 2018
- Pippin v. Boulevard Motel Corp.District Court, D. Maine · 2015
- BENSON v. WAL-MART STORES EAST INCDistrict Court, D. Maine · 2020
- Johnson v. AtwalDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2020
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.