Alexander v. CareSource

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a document bearing trade inscription indicating its source may be self-authenticating under Fed. R. Evid. 902(7)
• recognizing that “[hjearsay evidence” used to counter a motion for summary judgment “must be disregarded.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)
• holding that, because the district court considered the same facts as the government agency, the conclusion in the agency’s report did not establish a material issue of fact
• holding unauthenticated documents do not meet the requirements of Rule 56(c) and must be disregarded by the court in deciding summary judgment
• explaining that conclusory statements without supporting evidence are insufficient to overcome summary judgment
• noting that whether a hearing was conducted is one relevant consideration

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).