Farrell v. Cassano, 34 F. App'x 11 (2002)
- Citation
- Farrell v. Cassano, 34 F. App'x 11 (2002)
- Parent Document
- Farrell v. Cassano, 34 F. App'x 11 (2002)
- Jurisdiction
- United States (federal)
- Effective Date
- 2002-04-29
Other Sections in This Document (15)
- Farrell v. Cassano, 34 F. App'x 11 (2002)
- Farrell v. Cassano, 34 F. App'x 11 (2002)
- Farrell v. Cassano, 34 F. App'x 11 (2002)
- Farrell v. Cassano, 34 F. App'x 11 (2002)
- Farrell v. Cassano, 34 F. App'x 11 (2002)
- Farrell v. Cassano, 34 F. App'x 11 (2002)
- Farrell v. Cassano, 34 F. App'x 11 (2002)
- Farrell v. Cassano, 34 F. App'x 11 (2002)
- Farrell v. Cassano, 34 F. App'x 11 (2002)
- Farrell v. Cassano, 34 F. App'x 11 (2002)
- Farrell v. Cassano, 34 F. App'x 11 (2002)
- Farrell v. Cassano, 34 F. App'x 11 (2002)
- Farrell v. Cassano, 34 F. App'x 11 (2002)
- Farrell v. Cassano, 34 F. App'x 11 (2002)
- Farrell v. Cassano, 34 F. App'x 11 (2002)
Full Text
709 charsFarrell next argues that the defendants’ evidence was insufficient to support the district court’s grant of summary judgment because the defendants did not “set forth any evidence or statement that they are competent to testify to the fact that the buyers wished members of their ‘extended family1 to reside in the apartment,” which Farrell deems inadmissible hearsay. The proper focus of the inquiry, however, is why defendants acted as they did, because it is the defendants who are charged with acting in a discriminatory manner, not the prospective buyers. Thus, defendants are entitled to offer testimony accounting for their actions. The district court therefore properly credited defendants’ testimony.