Ballard v. Heineman

How courts have described this case

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

• considering statements of fact admitted under NECivR 56.1 when the opposing party did not respond
• deeming the movants’ statements of fact in support of their motions for summary judgment admitted under the district court’s local rule where the plaintiff did not respond to the statements
• \[C]onclusory affidavits devoid of specific allegations rebutting the moving party's evidence cannot defeat a summary judgment motion.\
• standard of review; discovery need not be complete before court grants summary judgment, unless party files affidavit showing what facts further discovery may uncover
• The plaintiff failed to respond to the defendants’ statements of fact, and the district court deemed the defendants’ facts admitted.
• “Because [plaintiff] never filed a proper Rule [56(d)] motion, the district court did not abuse its discretion by granting summary judgment on the record before it.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).