Legal Opinion
Scott ex rel. McNeely v. Taco Bell Corp.
District Court, S.D. West Virginia
Decided July 11, 1995No. Civ. A. No. 2:94-0956PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
HADEN, Chief Judge.
Pending is the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment filed June 12,1995. The Plaintiffs have not responded. The time for response has passed and the motion is ripe for adjudication. For reasons set forth below, the Defendant’s motion is GRANTED.
I
A principal purpose of summary judgment is to isolate and dispose of meritless litigation. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2553, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). The standard used to determine whether a motion for summary judgment should be granted or denied was stated recently by our…
2Cases cited17 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
- Shaw v. StroudCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1994
- Charbonnages De France v. Frank B. Smith, Juanita Smith, Frank Smith, Jr., Smith Brothers Construction Company and Continental Coal Sales CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1979
- Custer v. Pan American Life Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1993
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Strahin v. CleavengerWest Virginia Supreme Court · 2004
- Cunagin v. Cabell Huntington Hospital, Inc.District Court, S.D. West Virginia · 2020
- Strahin v. CleavengerWest Virginia Supreme Court · 2004