Legal Opinion
Bobbitt v. Detroit Edison Co.
District Court, E.D. Michigan
Decided August 19, 2002No. CIV. 01-40170PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
GADOLA, District Judge.
Before the Court is Defendant City of Detroit’s motion for summary judgment [docket entry 20]. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(e), the Court concludes that oral argument would not aid substantially in the disposition of this motion. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants the City of Detroit’s motion.
I. BACKGROUND
On August 2, 2000, Plaintiff went to the a Detroit Edison Customer Service Office located at 21000 Grand River Avenue in Detroit, Michigan. Plaintiff intended to pay her Detroit Edison bill, but left after realizing that she had…
2Cases cited19 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
- Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs.Supreme Court of the United States · 1978
- City of Canton v. HarrisSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Soles v. Ingham CountyDistrict Court, W.D. Michigan · 2004
- House v. County of MacOmbDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2004
- Town of Warren Ambulance Service v. Department of Public Safety, Maine Emergency Medical ServicesSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2007