Custer v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that although a “plaintiffs bare assertion of non-receipt” 13 is not enough to “create a genuine issue of material fact,” evidence “of non-receipt can be used to establish that the notice was never mailed”
• explaining that the mailbox rule was “still germane” where issue was whether notice was mailed because a “threshold question for the application of the mailbox rule is whether there is sufficient evidence that the letter was actually mailed”
• noting that “[t]he version of the mailbox rule” used under these circumstances “provides that the proper and timely mailing of a document raises a rebuttable presumption that the document has been received by the addressee in the usual time”
• noting that “[t]he version of the mailbox rule” used under these circumstances “provides that the proper and timely mailing of a document raises a rebuttable presumption that the document has been received by the addressee in the usual time”
• genuine dispute of material fact remained on issue of mailing, despite testimony that the defendant business typically used first-class mailing procedures
• “[W]here the employee’s assertion of non-receipt is supported by circumstantial evidence, and the employer provides an equally weak assertion that notice was mailed, the issue of mailing should not be decided at summary judgment.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).