§Why CasetextPricing

NORTH AMERICAN ELITE INSURANCE COMPANY v. VICTORY FIRE PROTECTION, INC.

RESPONSE in Opposition re MOTION for Summary Judgment of Third Party/Fourth Party Defendant Penn Builders Inc.

10 Cited authorities

  1. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett

    477 U.S. 317 (1986)   Cited 217,065 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"

  2. DiFolco v. MSNBC Cable L.L.C.

    622 F.3d 104 (2d Cir. 2010)   Cited 2,399 times
    Holding that "[i]n considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b), a district court may consider . . . documents incorporated by reference in the complaint" and any document "where the complaint relies heavily upon its terms and effect, thereby rendering the document integral to the complaint"

  3. Hanna v. Plumer

    380 U.S. 460 (1965)   Cited 3,182 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that in diversity cases, federal courts should apply any on-point Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, unless it directly conflicts with state law and violates either the Constitution or the Rules Enabling Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2072

  4. Ness v. Marshall

    660 F.2d 517 (3d Cir. 1981)   Cited 420 times
    Holding that dismissal of city solicitor and assistant city solicitor based on party affiliation did not violate first amendment rights

  5. Bayou Bottling, Inc. v. Dr Pepper Co.

    725 F.2d 300 (5th Cir. 1984)   Cited 39 times
    Upholding agreement offering free maintenance on retailer's machines if stocked only with defendants' products

  6. Answering Service, Inc. v. Egan

    728 F.2d 1500 (D.C. Cir. 1984)   Cited 24 times

    Nos. 82-1726, 82-1793. Argued February 23, 1983. Decided February 28, 1984. Kenneth Wells Parkinson, Washington, D.C., with whom James R. Michal, Washington, D.C., was on brief, for appellant. William E. Fay, III, Washington, D.C., for appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (Civil Action No. 82-00200). Before MIKVA, EDWARDS, and SCALIA, Circuit Judges. Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge MIKVA. Concurring opinion filed by Circuit Judge SCALIA

  7. Sightsound.com Incorporated v. N2K, Inc.

    391 F. Supp. 2d 321 (W.D. Pa. 2003)   Cited 3 times
    Concluding based on the breadth of definitions in multiple dictionaries that "prevent" incorporates both the "concept of absolutely stopping . . . as well as merely hindering the event" by making it difficult for the event to occur

  8. Bayou Bottling, Inc. v. Dr. Pepper Co.

    543 F. Supp. 1255 (W.D. La. 1982)   Cited 3 times

    No. 790253. July 15, 1982. George P. Kersten and E. Campion Kersten, Kersten McKinnon, Milwaukee, Wis., A.J. Gray, Camp, Carmouche, Palmer, Barsh Hunter, Lake Charles, La., for plaintiff. William E. Shaddock and Robert W. Clements, Bernard H. McLaughlin, Jr., Stockwell, Sievert, Viccellio, Clements Shaddock, J.L. Cox and James E. Williams, Woodley, Barnett, Cox, Williams Fenet, Lake Charles, La., Morris Harrell and Marshall M. Searcy, Rain, Harrell, Emery, Young Doke, Dallas, Tex., for defendants

  9. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 329,994 times   158 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

  10. Rule 14 - Third-Party Practice

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 14   Cited 3,648 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Striking improper third-party claim is appropriate remedy