Stanley v. United States
District Court, W.D. New York
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM and ORDER
ELFVIN, District Judge.
In this “dog-bite” case arising under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“the FTCA”) 1 , defendant United States of America moves for summary judgment. Such motion will be granted.
Summary judgment is appropriate if it is shown that “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” FRCvP 2 56(c); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). The defendant, as the moving party or movant, need not negate the non-moving plaintiffs or…
2Cases cited26 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
- Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Grishelda Bryant v. John J. Maffucci, Dawn Thackeray, Yvonne Powell, Norwood Jackson and Dr. Edward AllanCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1991
- Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1958
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Sharon Bennett v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1996
- Phillips v. United StatesDistrict Court, W.D. Texas · 2006
- Bennett v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1996