American Family Life Assurance v. Glenda Biles, et

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that a litigant “may not simply rely on vague assertions that additional discovery will produce needed, but unspecified, facts”
• explaining that a litigant “may not simply rely on vague assertions that additional discovery will produce needed, but unspecified, facts”
• explaining non-moving party requesting additional discovery “may not simply rely on vague assertions that additional discovery will produce needed, but unspecified, facts” (citation omitted)
• rejecting appellant’s argument that district court’s summary judgment should be reversed based on an affidavit in the record that was not cited in opposition to summary judgment
• “Rule 56 does not impose upon the district court a duty to sift through the record in search of evidence . . . .”
• “Rule 56 does not impose upon the district court a duty to sift through the record in search of evidence . . . .”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).