United States v. Parkin-Hernandez

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that “[t]o the extent that this [c]ourt relies on facts drawn from [the] [d]efendants’ Rule 56.1 [s]tatement, it does so because [the] [p]laintiff has not disputed those facts” since “[the] [p]laintiff did not submit a Rule 56.1 statement”
• explaining that “[t]o the extent that this [c]ourt relies on facts drawn from [the] [d]efendants’ Rule 56.1 [s]tatement, it does so because [the] [p]laintiff has not disputed those facts” since “[the] [p]laintiff did not submit a Rule 56.1 statement”
• explaining that “[t]o the extent that this [c]ourt relies on facts drawn from [the] [d]efendants’ Rule 56.1 [s]tatement, it does so because [the] [p]laintiff has not disputed those facts” since “[the] [p]laintiff did not submit a Rule 56.1 statement”
• explaining that “[t]o the extent that this [c]ourt relies on facts drawn from [the] [d]efendants’ Rule 56.1 [s]tatement, it does so because [the] [p]laintiff has not disputed those facts” since “[the] [p]laintiff did not submit a Rule 56.1 statement”
• supervisors’ repeated direction of profanities at employee, including calling her a “[b]itch, slut, [and] whore,” were insufficiently extreme and outrageous
• supervisors’ repeated direction of profanities at employee, including calling her a “[b]itch, slut, [and] whore,” were insufficiently extreme and outrageous

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).