Planmatics, Inc. v. Showers

How courts have described this case

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

• instructing that “[a] party may not create an issue of fact through bald assertions, unsupported contentions, and conclusory statements”
• noting that “[o]n a motion for summary judgment, a district court may only consider evidence that would be admissible at trial” (citations omitted)
• finding that when a nonmoving party relies on her own interrogatory answers when opposing a motion for summary judgment, such answers should satisfy the Rule 56(e) personal knowledge requirement
• relying on Maryland Metals in recognizing the implied duty of loyalty in Maryland employment contracts
• “On a motion for summary judgment, a district court may only consider evidence that would be admissible at trial.” (citations omitted)
• “On a motion for summary judgment, a district court may only consider evidence that would be admissible at trial.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).