Andil v. Wakefern Food Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that where the record lacked evi- dence suggesting personal involvement in allegedly unlawful activities in a Section 1983 case was insufficient on summary judgment
• explaining that on interlocutory appeal “if a district court concludes that a reasonable jury could find certain specified facts in favor of the plaintiff, the Supreme Court has indicated we usually must take them as true”
• “The record before us lacks any evidence suggesting Dr. Tripp’s involvement in any of these ... unlawful activities.”
• “If qualified immunity is to mean anything, it must mean that public employees who are just doing their jobs are generally immune from suit.”
• “If qualified immunity is to mean anything, it must mean that public employees who are just doing their jobs are generally immune from suit.”
• “The problem with th[e district court’s] discussion is that it doesn’t tell us what [the defendant] did or where, when, or why he took any action that might have violated [the plaintiffs] Fourth Amendment rights.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).