Skip to main content
Federal & State Lawfederalstatelaw.com
Home/Federal/Cases
Tenth Circuit· 5/2/2017

Cerveny v. Aventis, Inc.

Citations

  • 855 F.3d 1091
  • 97 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 1013
  • 2017 WL 1573309
  • 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 7745

How courts have described this case

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

  • refusing to consider plaintiffs’ arguments for additional discovery when those arguments were made only in their summary judgment response
  • affirming denial of Rule 56(d) request even where the response to the summary judgment motion “arguably contained the information required” because that information was not set out in the affidavit
  • “[T]he affidavit did not . . . explain how additional discovery would rebut Aventis’s preemption defense.”
  • “The Cervenys’ summary judgment response arguably contains the information required in Rule 56(d). But we may not look beyond the affidavit in considering a Rule 56(d) request.”
  • “Thus, we ordinarily consider preemption as a legal issue subject to de novo review.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Bacharach, Phillips, McHugh

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

8 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

29 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Cerveny v. Aventis, Inc.

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.