Michael J. Stalbosky v. William Christopher Belew and Three Rivers Trucking Company

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that, under FRE 801(d)(2)(A), “a party’s statement is admissible as non-hearsay only if it is offered against that party”
• observing that this court has traditionally reviewed de novo district court conclusions about whether proffered evidence is hearsay
• noting that a party cannot rely on conclusory and vague statements to successfully counter a motion for summary judgment
• noting that a party cannot rely on conclusory and vague statements to successfully counter a motion for summary judgment
• finding that statement made by one defendant may not be considered in motion for summary judgment against different defendant because that statement was hearsay
• noting that “[t]his concept of foreseeability is evaluated under the totality of the circumstances”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).