Moncada v. Peters

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that under Fed. R. Evid. 901, a proponent “need only offer proof sufficient for a reasonable fact finder to conclude that the evidence in question is what the proponent says it is”
• “A plaintiff that offers only ‘mere speculation[]’ to refute the employer”s proffered legitimate, non-discriminatory reason, however, fails to create a genuine issue of material fact to avoid summary judgment.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).