Burch v. Regents of the University of California

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 wrestling coach’s speech about gender discrimination affecting female wrestlers was a matter of public concern
• holding that, “where the objecting party does not contest the 17 authenticity of the evidence submitted, but nevertheless makes an evidentiary 18 objection based on purely procedural grounds,” the court should consider the 19 evidence
• holding that, “where the objecting party does not contest the 17 authenticity of the evidence submitted, but nevertheless makes an evidentiary 18 objection based on purely procedural grounds,” the court should consider the 19 evidence
• noting that “[a] court can award summary judgment only when 3 there is no genuine dispute of material fact,” meaning that “[i]t cannot rely on irrelevant 4 facts, and thus relevance objections are redundant”
• declining “to rule on admissibility because, in a serendipitous turn of events, it found it unnecessary to rely on” the objectionable exhibits
• noting that various evidentiary objections, such as relevance, were redundant at the summary judgment stage where the court can award summary judgment only in the absence of a genuine issue of material fact based on evidence the contents of which must be admissible

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).