Legal Opinion
Van Leeuwan v. Nuzzi
District Court, D. Colorado
Decided January 21, 1993No. Civ. A. 91-K-1932PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
KANE, Senior District Judge.
This matter is before me on Defendant Dr. Richard M. Nuzzi’s motion for summary judgment, filed September 22, 1992. Despite local rules which require the nonmovant to respond to a motion for summary judgment within twenty days after service, Plaintiff Susan Van Leeuwan has failed to do so. Rule 56(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that when a motion for summary judgment is made and properly supported, the adverse party may not rest on the pleadings and must “set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Bloskas v. MurraySupreme Court of Colorado · 1982
- Melville v. SouthwardSupreme Court of Colorado · 1990
- Kinsey v. PreesonSupreme Court of Colorado · 1987
- Bauer v. Southwest Denver Mental Health Center, Inc.Colorado Court of Appeals · 1985
- Dorney v. HarrisDistrict Court, D. Colorado · 1980
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Mehaffy, Rider, Windholz & Wilson v. Central Bank Denver, N.A.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1995
- City of Raton v. Arkansas River Power AuthorityDistrict Court, D. New Mexico · 2008
- Conrad v. THE EDUC. RESOURCES INSTITUTEDistrict Court, D. Colorado · 2009
- Espander v. CramerColorado Court of Appeals · 1995
- Farrell v. Johnson & JohnsonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2020
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.