Robin v. Espo Engineering Corp.
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
More on how this was screened
Later courts continue to apply Robin's separate rule that a party opposing summary judgment must offer evidence beyond the pleadings.
37 later cases cite Robin v. Espo Engineering Corp.; 37 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.
Relying on Robin v. Espo Engineering Corp.?
This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.
Treatments
Overruled in part
-
The Seventh Circuit overruled Robin to the extent it treated a “convincing mosaic” as a governing test for employment discrimination.
Ortiz v. Werner Enterprises, Inc. · Seventh Circuit · filed
Robin v. Espo Engineering Corp., 200 F.3d 1081, 1088–89 (7th Cir. 2000). ... We overrule the opinions in the previous paragraph to the extent that they rely on “convincing mosaic” as a governing legal standard.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads Robin v. Espo Engineering Corp. and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace