Shaw ex rel. Estate of Stroud v. Coosa County Commission

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that courts “evaluating claims of discrimination” brought under the IHRA “apply the same” methods used “by federal courts in evaluating causes of action brought pursuant to” the ADEA
• noting that courts “evaluating claims of discrimination” brought under the IHRA “apply the same” methods used “by federal courts in evaluating causes of action brought pursuant to” the ADEA
• noting that courts “evaluating claims of discrimination” brought under the IHRA “apply the same” methods used “by federal courts in evaluating causes of action brought pursuant to Title VII” or the ADEA
• noting that the “the nonmoving party’s additional facts belong in a separate statement”
• stating that, if a party does not present an argument concerning why summary judgment should not be entered on a particular claim, \the claim is deemed waived and the nonmoving party will lose the motion\
• stating that, if a party does not present an argument concerning why summary judgment should not be entered on a particular claim, “the claim is deemed waived and the nonmoving party will lose the motion’

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).