Charlene Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the district court did not err in denying a Rule 56(d) continuance where the plaintiffs “undertook no discovery . . . for more than one year” and only deposed witnesses “shortly before the summary judgment”
• affirming sua sponte summary judgment for defendant without notice because, inter alia, “[i]t does not appear that [plaintiffs] have any additional evidence to offer regarding [defendants’] liability; they do not identify any, and we find none in our review of the record”
• movant “undertook no discovery . . . for more than one year”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).