Carlile v. Holdship

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 plaintiff “did not respond to [the defendant’s] arguments in his opposition . . . [the] [p]laintiff abandoned his . . . claims,” and “dismiss[ing] [them] with prejudice”
• holding that where the plaintiff “did not respond to [the defendant’s] arguments in his opposition . . . [the] [p]laintiff abandoned his . . . claims,” and “dismiss[ing] [them] with prejudice”
• holding that where the plaintiff “did not respond to [the defendant’s] arguments in his opposition . . . [the p]laintiff abandoned his . . . claims,” and, thus, “dismiss[ing] [those claims] with prejudice”
• establishing that plaintiff may raise causal connection indirectly through evidence of temporal proximity or disparate treatment of similarly situated individuals, or directly through evidence of retaliatory animus directed at plaintiff
• taking judicial notice of a CBA between the DOE and a teachers union, of which the plaintiff was a member
• taking judicial notice of a CBA between the DOE and a teachers union, of which the plaintiff was a member

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).