Legal Opinion
Moholt v. Dooney & Bourke, Inc.
District Court, D. Oregon
Decided November 19, 2014No. Case No. 3:13-CV-01026-SIPublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
MICHAEL H. SIMON, District Judge.
Defendant, Dooney & Bourke, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Doortey”), moves for summary judgment against all claims asserted by Plaintiff, Ron Moholt (“Plaintiff’ or “Moholt”). For the following reasons, Dooney’s motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part.
STANDARDS
A party is entitled to summary judgment if the “movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). The moving party has the burden of establishing the absence of a genuine…
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
- Clicks Billiards Inc., a Texas Corporation v. Sixshooters Inc., an Arizona Corporation Ronald R. Forbes, a Married Man Jane Doe Forbes, WifeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001
- Nordling v. JohnstonOregon Supreme Court · 1955
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Virgil Johnson and Virgil Johnson Trucking v. Associated Milk Producers, Inc.Supreme Court of Iowa · 2016
- Amended December 23, 2016 Virgil Johnson and Virgil Johnson Trucking v. Associated Milk Producers, Inc.Supreme Court of Iowa · 2016
- Hurst v. First Student, Inc.District Court, D. Oregon · 2016
- Meyer v. MittalDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 2023
- Sharqawi v. Kirby CompanyDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 2023
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.