Legal Opinion
Buono v. Norton
District Court, C.D. California
Decided July 24, 2002No. EDCV01216RTSGLXPublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER 1) GRANTING PLAINTIFFS FRANK BUONO’S AND ALLEN SCHWARTZ’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND 2) DENYING DEFENDANTS GALE NORTON’S, JOHN REYNOLDS’, AND MARY MARTIN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
TIMLIN, District Judge.
The court, Judge Robert J. Timlin, has read and considered Plaintiffs Frank Buo-no (“Buono”) and Allen Schwartz (“Schwartz”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”)’s Motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 56 (“Rule 56”); Defendants Gail Norton (“Norton”), John Reynolds (“Reynolds”), and Mary Martin (“Martin”) (collectively, “the government” 1 ’s…
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
- Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Warth v. SeldinSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Salazar v. BuonoSupreme Court of the United States · 2010
- Buono v. NortonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2004
- Buono v. NortonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2004
- Buono v. KempthorneCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2007
- Buono v. NortonDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2005
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.