Legal Opinion
Gardner v. Wayne County
District Court, E.D. Michigan
Decided August 21, 2007No. 06-CV-10372-DTPublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING “DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT” AND DENYING AS MOOT “DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS FOR ECONOMIC DAMAGES”
ROBERT H. CLELAND, District Judge.
Pending before the court is Defendants Wayne County (the “County”), Kulah Allen, Princelia Buchannon, Josephine Messelmani-Woods, Felecia Coléman'and Loretta Wade’s (“Defendants’ ”) May 10, 2007 “Motion for Summary Judgment.” This motion has been fully briefed and the court concludes that a hearing on the motion is not necessary. See E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(e)(2). For the reasons stated below, the…
2Cases cited39 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
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. GreenSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Faragher v. City of Boca RatonSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Chambers v. City of DetroitDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2011
- LUPESCU v. NapolitanoDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 2010
- Glass v. Captain Katanna's, Inc.District Court, M.D. Florida · 2013
- Blick v. Ann Arbor Public School DistrictDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2021
- Brown v. The Professional GroupDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2021
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.