MAILLIARD ET AL.

v.

GONZALEZ ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Jones v. The Auto. Ins. Co. OF Hartford, 917 F.2d 1528 (11th Cir. 1990)
  …the judge does not exclude them, Rule 12(b) requires the judge to comply with the requirements of Rule 56. Carter v. Stanton, 405 U.S. 669, 671, 92 S.Ct. 1232, 1234, 31 L.Ed.2d 569, 572 (1972), vacated on other grounds, sub nom. Samkowski v. Carter, 416 U.S. 918, 94 S.Ct. 1916, 40 L.Ed.2d 276 (1974). Rule 56 states, in relevant part, that a “motion [for summary judgment] shall be served at least 10 days before the time fixed for the hearing.” Thus, the court must give the parties ten days notice that it is…
• Adams v. Reuben O'D. Askew, 511 F.2d 700 (5th Cir. 1975)
  …means of qualifying for indigents, a class constitutionally exempt under Bullock and Lubin, were void and unconstitutional as to all in spite of a three-judge court order then in effect in Fair v. Taylor, M.D.Fla.1972, 359 F.Supp. 304, vacated 1974, 416 U.S. 918, 94 S.Ct. 1916, 40 L.Ed.2d 276, enjoining the exaction of fees from indigent candidates; and (3) the Florida statute requiring a filing fee from candidates running in nonpartisan judicial elections is arbitrary and serves no valid governmental inter…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Gallagher v. Ernestine D. Evans, 536 F.2d 899 (10th Cir. 1976)
  …on to be held primary election. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the New Mexico Supreme Court and remanded the case for further consideration in light of Lubin v. Panish, 415 U.S. 709, 94 S.Ct. 1315, 39 L.Ed.2d 702. See Norvell v. Apodaca, 416 U.S. 918, 94 S.Ct. 1915, 40 L.Ed.2d 276. On remand the New Mexico Supreme Court noted that the filing fee statute had been repealed, see N.Mex. Laws 1973, ch. 228, § 11, and dismissed the case as moot. To sustain the statute the defendant asserts that the f…