“Ms. Braxton argues the district court erred in its construction of the deposition testimony because, as the nonmovant responding to Walmart’s motion for summary judgment, she, not Walmart, was entitled to all favorable factual inferences,” the opinion said. “But in so arguing, she necessarily concedes that the evidence she relies upon requires inference, which means it was not ‘direct.'”
Michael Best’s Entry Into NY Caps a Decade of Strategic Expansion
Michael Best & Friedrich has grown by more than 50%