Legal Opinion
Doe v. Peterson
District Court, E.D. Michigan
Decided March 24, 2011No. Case 2:09-cv-13138-PDB-PJKPublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
PAUL D. BORMAN, District Judge.
This case comes before the Court on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 59.) Plaintiff has filed a response. 1 (Dkt. No. 63.) Defendants have not filed a reply. Oral arguments were heard on Monday, February 28, 2011 at 2:00 p.m. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion for summary judgment with respect to Plaintiffs invasion of privacy claims — intrusion upon seclusion and public disclosure of private facts — but otherwise DENIES the motion…
2Cases cited24 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
- Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
- United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1994
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Dobronski v. BaidDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2024
- Raleigh v. Service Employees International UnionDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2021