Legal Opinion
Fisher v. Halliburton
District Court, S.D. Texas
Decided March 25, 2010No. Civil Action H-05-1731, H-06-1971, H-06-1168PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Memorandum Opinion & Order
GRAY H. MILLER, District Judge.
Pending before the court are defendants’ motions for summary judgment. Fisher Dkt. 319, Lane Dkt. 146, Smith-Idol Dkt. 105. Upon consideration of the motions, the responses, the replies, the summary judgment record, the argument of counsel, and the applicable law, the motions are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as detailed below. Additionally, the court on its own motion finds that the question regarding the scope of the Defense Base Act’s exclusivity pro vision merits immediate interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).…
2Cases cited52 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
- Little v. Liquid Air Corp.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1994
- Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Cardoza-FonsecaSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
47 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Ingrid Fisher v. HalliburtonCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2012
- Jones v. Halliburton Co.District Court, S.D. Texas · 2011
- G4S Int'l Emp't Servs (Jersey) v. Newton-SealeyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2020
- Martin v. HalliburtonDistrict Court, S.D. Texas · 2011
- Cloyd v. KBR, Inc.District Court, S.D. Texas · 2021
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.