34 Cited authorities

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett
477 U.S. 317 (1986) Cited 215,979 times 40 Legal Analyses
Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"
Heckler v. Community Health Services
467 U.S. 51 (1984) Cited 1,276 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that a Medicare provider was responsible for familiarizing itself with the legal requirements of cost reimbursement and obtaining an agency interpretation of the applicable regulations
Coastal States Gas Corp. v. Dept. of Energy
617 F.2d 854 (D.C. Cir. 1980) Cited 1,183 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that when agency auditors communicate information from third parties to the agency's regional counsel and ask for legal advice, the regional counsel's written responses containing "neutral, objective analyses of agency regulations" are not privileged
Convertino v. U.S. Dep't of Justice
684 F.3d 93 (D.C. Cir. 2012) Cited 143 times
Reversing summary judgment and remanding to allow Convertino to complete his efforts to discover the identity of the official or officials responsible for the leak
Rodriguez-Cuervos v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
181 F.3d 15 (1st Cir. 1999) Cited 175 times
Holding that unsatisfactory performance is a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for employer's adverse action
Messina v. Krakower
439 F.3d 755 (D.C. Cir. 2006) Cited 132 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a Rule 28 filing provided adequate notice of the intent to appeal from an undesignated order
Byrd v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
174 F.3d 239 (D.C. Cir. 1999) Cited 158 times
Finding that a party seeking further discovery under Rule 56(f) has to state "what facts he intended to discover that would create a triable issue and why he could not produce them in opposition to the motion"
U.S. v. Farley
11 F.3d 1385 (7th Cir. 1993) Cited 153 times
Holding a "conclusory affidavit asserting that any factual portion of the document cannot be separated from the evaluative portion" was insufficient to assert the bank examination privilege and collecting cases to note that often an in camera inspection is common, but not necessary, for determining when the privilege applies
General Elec. Co. v. U.S.E.P.A
53 F.3d 1324 (D.C. Cir. 1995) Cited 145 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that regulated parties must be able to ascertain the meaning of the statute by "reviewing the regulations and other public statements issued by the agency"
United States ex rel. Folliard v. Gov't Acquisitions, Inc.
764 F.3d 19 (D.C. Cir. 2014) Cited 62 times 3 Legal Analyses
Concluding that reliance on a suppliers' certifications of COO data was reasonable in part because the defendant had notified GSA of its reliance during CAVs and GSA's report cards evaluating the defendant "all concluded that [the defendant] ha[d] complied with the TAA"
Section 1817 - Assessments
12 U.S.C. § 1817 Cited 129 times 4 Legal Analyses
Reporting requirements

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Bank of America, N.A.

34 Cited authorities

Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"

Holding that a Medicare provider was responsible for familiarizing itself with the legal requirements of cost reimbursement and obtaining an agency interpretation of the applicable regulations

Holding that when agency auditors communicate information from third parties to the agency's regional counsel and ask for legal advice, the regional counsel's written responses containing "neutral, objective analyses of agency regulations" are not privileged

Reversing summary judgment and remanding to allow Convertino to complete his efforts to discover the identity of the official or officials responsible for the leak

Holding that unsatisfactory performance is a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for employer's adverse action

Holding that a Rule 28 filing provided adequate notice of the intent to appeal from an undesignated order

Finding that a party seeking further discovery under Rule 56(f) has to state "what facts he intended to discover that would create a triable issue and why he could not produce them in opposition to the motion"

Holding that regulated parties must be able to ascertain the meaning of the statute by "reviewing the regulations and other public statements issued by the agency"

Concluding that reliance on a suppliers' certifications of COO data was reasonable in part because the defendant had notified GSA of its reliance during CAVs and GSA's report cards evaluating the defendant "all concluded that [the defendant] ha[d] complied with the TAA"

Reporting requirements