Skip to main content
· 10/2/1998

Gittens v. Garlocks Sealing Technologies

Citations

  • 19 F. Supp. 2d 104
  • 42 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 323
  • 8 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 1309
  • 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15855
  • 1998 WL 702273

How courts have described this case

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

  • \proceeding pro se does not otherwise relieve a litigant from the usual requirements of summary judgment\
  • granting summary judgment and finding that plaintiff has “failed to plead that he has a disability within the meaning of the ADA” where “plaintiff has not been limited from employment in general, and in fact has remained employed by defendant”
  • although a court should grant “significant liberality in how pro se pleadings are construed ... proceeding pro se does not otherwise relieve a litigant from the usual requirements of summary judgment”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Larimer

Read full opinion on CourtListener

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.