Stevens v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF SOUTH BEND, IND., 663 F.3d 300 (2011)

Citation: Stevens v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF SOUTH BEND, IND., 663 F.3d 300 (2011)
Parent Document: Stevens v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF SOUTH BEND, IND., 663 F.3d 300 (2011)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 2011-12-01
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/618130/stevens-v-housing-authority-of-s... ↗

Full Text

876 chars

interpretation as a “misapplication of Adickes” that is
“flatly contradict[ed]” by Celotex:
    A party moving for summary judgment need not
    introduce evidence rendering its opponents’ claims
    altogether impossible in order to trigger the op-
    ponent’s burden to answer with its own supporting
    evidence. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317,
    323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986).
Crawford, 647 F.3d at 648. As was the case in Crawford,
HASB’s motion for summary judgment compre-
hensively challenged the factual and legal support for
Stevens’ claims. The burden then shifted to Stevens to
cite evidence in the record demonstrating that genuine
issues of material fact remained for trial. Crawford, 647
F.3d at 648; Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. As the district court
properly did, we will apply the standards set forth in
Celotex in reviewing the judgment.

Other Sections in This Document (42)

Full Text