Legal Opinion

Salisbury v. Hickman

District Court, E.D. California

Decided September 24, 2013No. Case No. 1:12-cv-01098 LJO JLTPublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER ON THE PARTIES’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

LAWRENCE J. O’NEILL, District Judge.

Before the Court are the parties’ motions for summary judgment. Having carefully considered the parties’ submissions and the record, and for all the reasons set forth below, the Court (1) GRANTS Plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment and (2) GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

This case concerns allegations of sexual harassment and discrimination at Arrowhead Mobile Home Park (“Arrowhead”) in Ridgecrest, California.1 The parties…

2Cases cited33 opinions

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  4. Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
  5. First Nat. Bank of Ariz. v. Cities Service Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1968

28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Noah v. AssorDistrict Court, S.D. Florida · 2019
  2. (PS) Holmstrand v. Mercy Housing of CaliforniaDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2025
  3. Brian Peltier v. Tanja BeckDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2026
  4. Devonnia Horner v. Charles Warren and Judy WarrenDistrict Court, E.D. Arkansas · 2026
  5. GLAGOLA v. MACFANNDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 2023

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API