Anthony Kariuki v. Tracy Tarango

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that the reviewing court may “ ‘conduct a hearing de novo on the application’ ... by admitting and reviewing evidence in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which apply pursuant to FRCP 81(a)(3
• “‘[S]elf-serving allegations are not the type of significant probative evidence required to defeat summary judgment.’ . . . [W]ithout more, a vague or conclusory affidavit is insufficient to create [a fact issue].” (first alteration in original
• “[W]e agree with our sister circuits that a ‘hearing de novo’ within the meaning of Section 1421(c) encompasses an FRCP 56 review on summary judgment.”
• “[W]ithout more, a vague or conclusory affidavit is insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact in the fact of conflicting probative evidence.”
• “[W]ithout more, a vague or conclusory affidavit is insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact in the face of conflicting probative evidence.” (citation omitted)
• “[W]ithout more, a . . . conclusory affidavit is insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact in the face of conflicting probative evidence.” (citing Copeland v. Wasserstein, Perella & Co., 278 F.3d 472, 482 (5th Cir. 2002))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).