Legal Opinion

Hare v. HOSTO AND BUCHAN, PLLC

District Court, S.D. Texas

Decided March 30, 2011No. Civil Action H-09-373PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION AND ORDER

MELINDA HARMON, District Judge.

Pending before the Court is the motion for summary judgment (Doc. 13) of Defendants Hosto and Buchan, PLLC and Melvin Thathiah (“Defendants”), as well as Plaintiff Mary Hare’s (“Hare”) response (Doc. 16), and Defendants’ reply (Doc. 19). Also before the Court is Plaintiff Hare’s motion for partial summary judgment and supplemental argument (Docs. 15, 18), as well as the Defendants’ response (Doc. 22). Upon review and consideration of these motions, the responses and reply thereto, the relevant legal authority, and for the reasons explained…

2Cases cited31 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. United States v. Diebold, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1962
  5. Lujan v. National Wildlife FederationSupreme Court of the United States · 1990

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. BARENBAUM v. HAYT, HAYT & LANDAU, LLCDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2019
  2. Mike E. Deubler v. the Bank of New York Mellon as Successor Trustee Under Novastar Mortgage Funding Trust 2005-1, and Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc., Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo)2015

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

Powered by the Exa API