Carl L. Vance, by and Through His Attorney in Fact, Debra Vance Hammons v. United States

How courts have described this case

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

• holding expert testimony required to show causation between failure to diagnose pneumonia and Legionnaires’ disease and the subsequent non-ambulatory status of patient
• holding that Plaintiffs right to argue a need for discovery prior to the entry of summary judgment was preserved since Plaintiff moved to vacate summary judgment ten days later and included precisely the discovery needed and not “generalized statements [of necessary] discovery”
• finding the district court abused its discretion when it entered summary judgment three months after the plaintiff filed his complaint and before any discovery
• reversing summary judgment because “no discovery was conducted before the motion for summary judgment was filed and decided”
• \Most significant to the conclusion we reach is the fact that no discovery was conducted before the motion for summary judgment was filed and decided.\
• “Most significant to the conclusion we reach is the fact that no discovery was conducted before the motion for summary judgment was filed and decided.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).