Skip to main content
Tenth Circuit· 2/22/2018

Genberg v. Porter

Citations

  • 882 F.3d 1249

How courts have described this case

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

  • rejecting defense that firing was due to an intervening investigation when evidence suggested investigation was instigated as a response to the protected activity
  • finding, in a case under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act’s whistleblower protection provision, that very close temporal proximity between protected activity and an adverse employment action was enough to create a genuine fact dispute on “contributing factor”
  • “On an appeal from a grant of summary judgment, we draw all reasonable factual inferences in favor of the non-moving party.” (citation omitted)
  • “On an appeal from a grant of summary judgment, we draw all reasonable factual inferences in favor of the non-moving party.” (citation omitted)
  • according Chevron deference to the Sylvester “reasonable belief” standard

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Hartz, Holmes, Bacharach

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

6 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

16 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named Genberg v. Porter

2 other CourtListener records share 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.