Opinion ID: 2778164
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Material Fact Disputes

Text: General Yeager begins his appellate argument with the general objection that the district court failed to properly account for material fact disputes. In most instances, the asserted disputes are not in fact material to the 2 As explained later, there is one narrow respect in which the limitations period is relevant to the laches defense, and we consider it for that purpose. -7- district court’s dispositive ruling on laches, and we explain that immateriality in the sections below where the points arise in connection with particular objections raised on appeal. There is, however, one factual point emphasized by General Yeager here and throughout his briefing that (1) is clearly material to the laches issue, (2) was deemed undisputed in his favor, and yet (3) was left unaccounted for in the district court’s analysis. This point concerns the termination of the oral agreement in 2008 or 2009—after which any claim regarding the unauthorized use of his name or likeness would turn not on decades-old events involving formation and implementation of the agreement, but on distinct events occurring very recently in relation to the filing of this action. Indeed, this point leads us to partially reverse the grant of summary judgment, as explained in the relevant portion of section E below.