Ads
related to: texas summary judgment standard
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
It is not uncommon for summary judgments of the lower U.S. courts in complex cases to be overturned on appeal. A grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo, [15] meaning, without deference to the views of the trial judge, both as to the determination that there is no remaining genuine issue of material fact and that the prevailing party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Taylor v. Riojas, 592 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with qualified immunity.It was the first case in which the Supreme Court relied on the obviousness of a constitutional violation to overturn a lower court's decision to grant qualified immunity.
The case was removed to federal court where the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas granted summary judgment for Lago Vista and remanded the case against Waldrop to state court. Rejecting the Title IX claim, the district court ruled that Title IX was “enacted to counter policies of discrimination” and that “only ...
University of Texas in 2009 and upheld the legality of the university's admission policy in a summary judgment. The case was appealed to the Fifth Circuit which also ruled in the university's favor. The Supreme Court agreed on February 21, 2012, to hear the case.
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986), is a United States Supreme Court case articulating the standard for a trial court to grant summary judgment.Summary judgment will lie when, taking all factual inferences in the non-movant's favor, there exists no genuine issue as to a material fact and the movant deserves judgment as a matter of law.
Texas, 601 U.S. 285 (2024), was a case that the Supreme Court of the United States decided on April 16, 2024. [ 1 ] [ 2 ] The case dealt with the Supreme Court's takings clause jurisprudence . Because the case touched on whether or not the 5th Amendment is self-executing, the case had implications for Trump v.
In United States employment discrimination law, McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting or the McDonnell-Douglas burden-shifting framework refers to the procedure for adjudicating a motion for summary judgement under a Title VII disparate treatment claim, in particular a "private, non-class action challenging employment discrimination", [1] that lacks direct evidence of discrimination.
Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (1979), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court that set the standard for involuntary commitment for treatment by raising the burden of proof required to commit persons for psychiatric treatment from the usual civil burden of proof of "preponderance of the evidence" to "clear and convincing evidence".