Johnson Reg'l Med. Ctr. v. Halterman

41 Citing cases

  1. Dakota Energy Coop. v. E. River Elec. Power Coop.

    75 F.4th 870 (8th Cir. 2023)   Cited 2 times

    We review the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo, including its interpretation of South Dakota contract law.Johnson Reg'l Med. Ctr. v. Halterman, 867 F.3d 1013, 1016 (8th Cir. 2017). Summary judgment is appropriate if, after viewing the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and making all reasonable inferences in its favor, there remains "no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Hairston v. Wormuth, 6 F.4th 834, 840-41 (8th Cir. 2021) (quoting McPherson v. O'Reilly Auto., Inc., 491 F.3d 726, 730 (8th Cir. 2007)); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).

  2. Ryan Data Exch., Ltd. v. Graco, Inc.

    913 F.3d 726 (8th Cir. 2019)   Cited 19 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Applying Iowa law to district court determination of reasonable attorneys' fees and applicable burden of proof

    On the one hand, this court reviews de novo a district court's "prevailing party" determination in a contractual context. Johnson Reg'l Med. Ctr. v. Halterman, 867 F.3d 1013, 1020 (8th Cir. 2017). On the other hand, the court of appeals reviews an award of attorney's fees for an abuse of discretion, which review occurs when the district court commits a clear error of judgment in weighing the relevant factors.

  3. Holt v. Dep't of Justice

    4:22-cv-00605-KGB (E.D. Ark. Sep. 24, 2024)

    Johnson Reg'l Med. Ctr. v. Halterman, 867 F.3d 1013, 1016 (8th Cir. 2017) (quoting Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co.v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986)).

  4. Boney v. Retzer Res.

    4:23-cv-00077 KGB (E.D. Ark. Sep. 16, 2024)

    Johnson Regional Medical Ctr. v. Halterman, 867 F.3d 1013, 1016 (8th Cir. 2017) (quoting Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986)).

  5. Smith v. Tabletops Unlimited Inc.

    3:22-cv-00198-KGB (E.D. Ark. Apr. 15, 2024)

    , there is no genuine issue for trial.” Johnson Regional Medical Ctr. v. Halterman, 867 F.3d 1013, 1016 (8th Cir. 2017) (quoting MatsushitaElec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986)). A factual dispute is genuine if the evidence could cause a reasonable jury to return a verdict for either party.

  6. Lewis v. Jones

    4:20-cv-00366-KGB (E.D. Ark. Mar. 29, 2024)

    , there is no genuine issue for trial.” Johnson Regional Medical Ctr. v. Halterman, 867 F.3d 1013, 1016 (8th Cir. 2017) (quoting Matsushita Elec.

  7. Allen v. McClendon

    2:21-cv-00172 KGB (E.D. Ark. Mar. 29, 2024)

    , there is no genuine issue for trial.” Johnson Reg'l Med. Ctr. v. Halterman, 867 F.3d 1013, 1016 (8th Cir. 2017) (quoting Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986)).

  8. Carter v. Military Dep't of Ark.

    4:18-cv-00444-KGB (E.D. Ark. Jan. 19, 2023)

    “Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party, there is no genuine issue for trial.” Johnson Reg'l Med. Ctr. v. Halterman, 867 F.3d 1013, 1016 (8th Cir. 2017) (quoting Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986)). A factual dispute is genuine if the evidence could cause a reasonable jury to return a verdict for either party.

  9. State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Lensing

    4:21-cv-01080-KGB (E.D. Ark. Dec. 16, 2022)

    “Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party, there is no genuine issue for trial.” Johnson RegionalMedical Ctr. v. Halterman, 867 F.3d 1013, 1016 (8th Cir. 2017) (quoting Matsushita Elec. Indus.Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986)).

  10. Libertarian Party of Ark. v. Thurston

    632 F. Supp. 3d 855 (E.D. Ark. 2022)

    "Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party, there is no genuine issue for trial." Johnson Reg'l Med. Ctr. v. Halterman, 867 F.3d 1013, 1016 (8th Cir. 2017) (quoting Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986)). A factual dispute is genuine if the evidence could cause a reasonable jury to return a verdict for either party.