Skip to main content
· 7/11/2011

Ridinger v. Dow Jones & Co. Inc.

Citations

  • 651 F.3d 309
  • 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 14146
  • 94 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 44,212
  • 112 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1221
  • 2011 WL 2675921

How courts have described this case

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

  • stating that to overcome a motion for summary judgment, a non-movant may not rely on “conclusory statements, conjecture, and inadmissible evidence”
  • stating that to overcome a motion for summary judgment, a plaintiff may not rely on “conclusory statements, conjecture, and inadmissible evidence.”
  • stating that to overcome a motion for summary judgment, a non- movant may not rely on “conclusory statements, conjecture, and inadmissible evidence”
  • converting a motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment because of the moving parties’ reliance on a separation agreement, which was outside the scope of the complaint
  • “[I]nadmissible evidence [is] insufficient to defeat summary judgment.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Kearse, McLaughlin, Livingston

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.