green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
10.0 score
“even the declarations that do contain hearsay are admissible for summary judgment purposes because they 'could be presented in an admissible form at trial.”
Treatment trajectory · 2004 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2004
2015
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Brown v. County of San Bernardino
even the declarations that do contain hearsay are admissible for summary judgment purposes because they 'could be presented in an admissible form at trial.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Brintley v. St. Mary Mercy Hospital
at the summary judgment stage we do not focus on the admissibility of the evidence's form.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
DeBiasi v. Charter County of Wayne
at the summary judgment stage we do not focus on the admissibihty of the evidence's form.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. HVI Cat Canyon, Inc.
See Fraser v. Goodale , 342 F.3d 1032 , 1036 (9th Cir. 2003), cert. denied , 541 U.S. 937 , 124 S.Ct. 1663 , 158 L.Ed.2d 358 (2004) (holding that, on summary judgment, the court "do[es] not focus on the admissibility of the evidence's form" but rather "focus[es] on the admissibility of its contents"); Block v. City of Los Angeles , 253 F.3d 410 , 418-19 (9th Cir. 2001) (holding that a party "does not necessarily have to produce evidence in a form that would be admissible at trial" for that evidence to be considered at the summary judgment stage).
cited
Cited "see"
In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether Products Liability Litigation
See Fraser v. Goodale, 342 F.3d 1032, 1036 (9th Cir.2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 937 , 124 S.Ct. 1663 , 158 L.Ed.2d 358 (2004). .
discussed
Cited "see"
Matthew Head v. Glacier Northwest, Incorporated, a Washington Corporation
(2×)
See infra Part III.B.2. 3 Fraser v. Goodale, 342 F.3d 1032, 1037 (9th Cir.2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 937 , 124 S.Ct. 1663 , 158 L.Ed.2d 358 (2004). 4 Id. at 1036 (quoting Hopkins v. Dow Corning Corp., 33 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir.1994)) (parallel citation omitted). 5 Id. at 1037. 6 192 F.3d 1226 (9th Cir.1999) 7 See McAlindin, 192 F.3d at 1235-36 . 8 Id. at 1235 . 9 See id. 10 Id. at 1235-36 . 11 Fraser, 342 F.3d at 1041 . 12 See id. at 1042 . 13 Id. at 1041-42 . 14 Id. at 1043-44 . 15 Id. at 1043 (emphasis added). 16 See FTC v. Publ'g Clearing House, Inc., 104 F.3d 1168, 1171 (9th Cir. 1997…
discussed
Cited "see"
Mancini v. Union Pacific Railroad
See Fraser v. Goodale, 342 F.3d 1032, 1036 (9th Cir.2003) ("In reviewing a summary judgment, we are limited to the ... evidence available to the court at the time the motion was made.”) (internal quotation omitted), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 124 S.Ct. 1663 , 158 L.Ed.2d 358 , 2004 WL 102834 (2004).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Woida v. Genesys Regional Medical Center
Celotex v. Catrett, supra, 477 U.S. at 324 , 106 S.Ct. at 2553 (explaining that in requiring the nonmoving party to produce evidence to withstand a motion for summary judgment, “[w]e do not mean that the nonmoving party must produce evidence in a form that would be admissible at trial”); see also Fraser v. Goodale, 342 F.3d 1032, 1036 (9th Cir.2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 937 , 124 S.Ct. 1663 , 158 L.Ed.2d 358 (2004) ("At the summary judgment stage we do not focus on the admissibility of the evidence’s form.”).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Benz v. WEST LINN PAPER COMPANY
And though her pain and grogginess limited her thinking and concentrating at times when she was working, Beeerril has not raised a genuine *1235 issue of material fact on whether her intermittent symptoms substantially limited her ability to think and concentrate not just at work but outside of work as well.”); see also Fraser v. Goodale, 342 F.3d 1032, 1044 (9th Cir.2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 937 , 124 S.Ct. 1663 , 158 L.Ed.2d 358 (2004) (finding intermittent inability to think was not a disability); Sanders v. Arneson Prods., Inc., 91 F.3d 1351, 1353-54 (9th Cir.1996) (finding psycholog…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Tidwell
v.
Bellsouth Telecommunications, Inc
v.
Bellsouth Telecommunications, Inc
03-1033.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 22, 2004.
Published
Citer courts: E.D. Michigan (2) · C.D. California (1)
TIDWELL
v.
BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC.
No. 03-1033.
Supreme Court of United States.
March 22, 2004.
1
Ct. Civ. App. Ala. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 876 So. 2d 533.