Jose MEDINA-MUNOZ, Etc., Et Al., Plaintiffs, Appellants, v. R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, Defendant, Appellee

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that one opposing summary judgment cannot rely simply on “conclusory allegations” or “unsupported speculation”
• holding that one opposing summary <br>judgment cannot rely simply on \conclusory allegations\ or <br>\unsupported speculation\
• stating that a court of appeals may affirm on “any independently sufficient ground” when reviewing a district courts grant of summary judgment
• noting that even “elusive concepts such as motive or intent” sometimes can be decided on sum *-642 mary judgment
• finding that it was “too large a leap” to attribute an employee’s purportedly discriminatory report to the management
• explaining that in discrimination cases, summary judgment is appropriate where the nonmoving party rests entirely upon “conclusory allegations, improbable inferences, and unsupported speculation” on any essential element of the discrimination claim

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).