holding that the non-moving party must designate or refer to evidence in response to a motion for summary judgment for the evidence to be "part of the competent summary judgment record before the court,” quoting Nissho-Iwai Am. Corp. v. Kline, 845 F.2d 1300, 1307 (5th Cir.1988)
How later courts described this case
- holding that the non-moving party must designate or refer to evidence in response to a motion for summary judgment for the evidence to be "part of the competent summary judgment record before the court,” quoting Nissho-Iwai Am. Corp. v. Kline, 845 F.2d 1300, 1307 (5th Cir.1988)
- explaining that on summary judgment, although record is reviewed de novo, appellate court will not consider evidence or arguments not presented to the district court for its consideration on the motion
- stating that courts of appeals “will not consider evidence or arguments that were not presented to the district court for its consideration in ruling on the motion”
- holding that the defendant was not required to produce evidence negating causation
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ON SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC.
March 26, 1992.
Before WISDOM, KING and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
*923 PER CURIAM:
Treating the suggestion for rehearing en banc as a petition for panel rehearing, it is ordered that the petition for panel rehearing is DENIED. No member of the panel nor Judge in regular active service of this Court having requested that the Court be polled on rehearing en banc (Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure and Local Rule 35), the suggestion for Rehearing En Banc is DENIED. The three February B, 1992, opinions are revised as follows: