Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio
475 U.S. 574 (1986) Cited 112,978 times 38 Legal AnalysesHolding that, on summary judgment, antitrust plaintiffs "must show that the inference of conspiracy is reasonable in light of the competing inferences of independent action or collusive action that could not have harmed" them
Bouchat v. Baltimore Ravens Football Club
346 F.3d 514 (4th Cir. 2003) Cited 3,428 timesHolding that the fact that products depicted an infringing logo did not establish a connection between the infringement and the revenue from the sale of those products
Lindstrom v. A-C Product Liability Trust
424 F.3d 488 (6th Cir. 2005) Cited 266 times 17 Legal AnalysesHolding that "a mere showing that defendant's product was present somewhere at plaintiffs place of work is insufficient [to establish causation,]" and rather that a plaintiff must show "a high enough level of exposure that an inference that the asbestos was a substantial factor in the injury is more than conjectural"
Gregg v. V-J Auto Parts, Company
596 Pa. 274 (Pa. 2007) Cited 102 times 9 Legal AnalysesAdopting the frequency, regularity and proximity standard in asbestos cases
Eckenrod v. GAF Corp.
375 Pa. Super. 187 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1988) Cited 112 times 4 Legal AnalysesGranting summary judgment in spite of plaintiff's evidence of direct handling of defendants' products
Coward v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.
1999 Pa. Super. 82 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1999) Cited 44 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that "a plaintiff should be afforded the use of the presumption that he or she would have followed an adequate warning"
Rule 56 - Summary Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Cited 328,261 times 158 Legal AnalysesHolding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit