Legal Opinion

Robinson v. May Department Stores Co.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Decided February 12, 2003No. 2:01-cv-01807PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

EXPLANATION AND ORDER

ANITA B. BRODY, District Judge.

The defendant moves for summary judgment with respect to plaintiff Judith Robinson’s claims on behalf of her daughter Sara Thai of intentional infliction for emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress and negligence. The plaintiff fails to designate any specific facts outside of the pleadings demonstrating that there is a genuine issue for trial on these claims. Because the defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the defendant’s summary judgment motion will be granted.

A. Factual Background

The plaintiff…

2Cases cited12 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. Burt N. Sempier v. Johnson & HigginsCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1995
  5. Sinn v. BurdSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1979

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Mzamane v. WinfreyDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2010
  2. Dempsey v. Bucknell UniversityDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2015
  3. Lin v. Rohm and Haas Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2003
  4. Betz v. SattesonDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2017
  5. McCracken v. Ford Motor Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2008

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

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

Powered by the Exa API