Legal Opinion
Trantham v. Super T. Transp., Inc.
District Court, D. Colorado
Decided April 30, 2018No. Civil Action No. 1:16–cv–02757–LTB–KLMPublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBabcock, Judge
This matter is before me on Defendants Manweiler Transport Inc. and Paul Hamelin's ("Moving Defendants") Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. (Mot. Summ. J., ECF No. 59.) Defendants Super T. Transport, Inc. and Layne Walters ("Opposing Defendants") filed a Response. (Defs.' Resp., ECF No. 60.) Plaintiff did not respond to Moving Defendants' Motion. For reasons explained below, I will not consider Opposing Defendants' Response on its merits. After consideration of the Motion, all proper related pleadings, and the case file, I grant Moving Defendants' Motion for the…
2Cases cited18 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
- Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Adler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1998
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- A-TAC Gear Guns Uniforms LLC v. U.S. Department of JusticeDistrict Court, D. Colorado · 2021
- Couture v. United Airlines, Inc.District Court, D. Colorado · 2022
- National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA v. Estate of Stephen Calendine, DDS, TheDistrict Court, D. Colorado · 2022
- Stratus Redtail Ranch LLC v. International Business Machines CorporationDistrict Court, D. Colorado · 2022