Legal Opinion
Clark v. Kizer
District Court, E.D. California
Decided October 3, 1990No. Civ. S-87-1700 LKKPublishedCited by 27 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
KARLTON, District Judge.
This matter is before the court on plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judg ment. For the reasons I explain below, the motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
I
SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARDS UNDER FED.R.CIV.P. 56
Summary judgment is appropriate when it is demonstrated that there exists no genuine issue as to any material fact, and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157, 90 S.Ct. 1598, 1608, 26 L.Ed.2d 142 (1970); Poller v. Columbia Broadcast System, 368 U.S. 464, 467,…
2Cases cited26 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
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
- United States v. Diebold, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1962
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by27 opinions
- Sobky v. SmoleyDistrict Court, E.D. California · 1994
- Arkansas Medical Society, Inc. v. Jack ReynoldsCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1993
- Clark v. CoyeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1995
- King Ex Rel. King v. SullivanDistrict Court, D. Rhode Island · 1991
- Arkansas Medical Society, Inc. v. ReynoldsCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1993
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.