Legal Opinion
Taylor v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided April 2, 1996No. Civil Action 93-891 SSHPublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
STANLEY S. HARRIS, District Judge.
Before the Court are defendant’s motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, plaintiffs opposition, and defendant’s reply. Also before the Court are defendant’s motion to strike, plaintiffs opposition, and defendant’s reply. Upon careful consideration of the entire record, defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part. Defendant’s motion to strike is granted. “Findings of fact and conclusions of law are unnecessary in motions under Rule 12 or 56.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a). However, for the benefit of the parties, the Court…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. GreenSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Texas Department of Community Affairs v. BurdineSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- St. Mary's Honor Center v. HicksSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Daisley v. Riggs Bank, N.A.District Court, District of Columbia · 2005
- Taylor v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit AuthorityDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2000
- Jones v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit AuthorityDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1996
- Yung v. INSTITUTIONAL TRADING CO.District Court, District of Columbia · 2010
- Cabardo v. PatacsilUnited States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. California · 2023
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.