Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Schoonover v. Klamath County

Schoonover v. Klamath County, 502 U.S. 940 (1991)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1991-11-04
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • holding that infer ence cannot be based on timing alone but must take into account other evidence
  • declaring that a non-movant may not “rest upon mere allegations, general denials, or ... vague statements”
  • declaring that non-movant may not “rest upon mere allegations, general denials, or ... vague statements”
  • declaring that nonmovant may not “rest upon mere allegations, general denials, or vague statements”
  • timing of events alone, even if sufficient to meet plaintiffs prima facie burden of showing retaliation, could not defeat defendant’s summary judgment motion
  • approving an award of attorneys fees under the district court’s power to award Rule 11 sanctions; the motion for attorney’s fees was filed at the conclusion of a bench trial
  • where the district court’s determination with respect to federal substantive law was intrinsic to its jurisdictional decision
  • plaintiff “has not shown that the timing of her filing of her [administrative] complaint ... and the request for her termination ... was anything but a coincidence”

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Schoonover v. Klamath County. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
105 opinions

Ct. App. Ore. Certiorari denied.