Yeager v. CINGULAR WIRELESS LLC
District Court, E.D. California
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR., District Judge.
This matter comes before the court on defendant AT & T Mobility, LLC’s (“AT & T” or “defendant”) 1 motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff General Charles E. “Chuck” Yeager (“Yeager” or “plaintiff’) opposes the motion. For the reasons set forth herein, 2 defendant’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED.
BACKGROUND 3
This case arises out of the use of plaintiffs name in a publication issued by Cingular Wireless entitled “Cingular Wireless Announces Enhanced Emergency Preparedness…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Lopez v. SmithCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000
- Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Amf Incorporated, a Corporation v. Sleekcraft Boats, a Sole Proprietorship, and Bruce E. Nescher, an IndividualCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1979
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Michael Davis v. Electronic Arts Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2015
- Perkins v. Linkedin Corp.District Court, N.D. California · 2014
- Beijing Meishe Network Technology Co., Ltd. v. TikTok Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2024
- The Upper Deck Company v. FloresDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2021
- The Upper Deck Company v. Panini America, Inc.District Court, S.D. California · 2020