Legal Opinion

Steele v. Fannie Mae

District Court, District of Columbia

Decided September 29, 2015No. Civil Action No. 2013-1089PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM OPINION

TANYA S. CHUTEAN, United States District Judge

Before the court are the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. Plaintiff Christopher Steele filed a motion for partial summary judgment on his promissory estoppel claim. Defendant Fannie Mae, formally known as the Federal National Mortgage Association, filed a cross-motion for summary judgment on all of Steele’s claims — breach of contract, promissory estoppel, fraudulent misrepresentation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Because Steele did not respond to Fannie Mae’s arguments with respect to breach of…

2Cases cited17 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. Holcomb, Christine v. Powell, DonaldCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2006
  4. Ross J. Laningham v. United States NavyCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1987
  5. Mastro, Brian A. v. Potomac Elec PowerCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2006

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. E.M. v. Shady Grove Reproductive Science Center P.C.District Court, District of Columbia · 2020
  2. Nwosu v. BolducDistrict Court, D. Colorado · 2025

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

Powered by the Exa API