Legal Opinion
Kingston Constructors, Inc. v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided August 22, 1994No. Civ. A. 93-1812 SSHPublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
STANLEY S. HARRIS, District Judge.
Before the Court are plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment, defendant’s opposition thereto and its cross-motion for summary judgment, and the parties’ responses and replies to those pleadings. Summary judgment may be granted only “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). In considering a summary judgment motion,…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Library of Congress v. ShawSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Loeffler v. FrankSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- United States v. N. Y. Rayon Importing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1947
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- In the Matter of the FORT TOTTEN METRORAIL CASES ARISING OUT OF the EVENTS OF JUNE 22, 2009District Court, District of Columbia · 2012
- Martin v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit AuthorityDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2003
- Commonwealth of Virginia, etc. v. AMEC Civil, LLCCourt of Appeals of Virginia · 2009
- Gilbert v. Federal Deposit InsuranceDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1997
- Jones v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit AuthorityDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1996
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.