15 Cited authorities

International Shortstop, Inc. v. Rally's
939 F.2d 1257 (5th Cir. 1991) Cited 2,305 times
Holding court need not accommodate request for continuance when nonmovant has not diligently pursued the discovery of necessary evidence
King v. Dogan
31 F.3d 344 (5th Cir. 1994) Cited 866 times
Holding that an amended complaint supersedes an original complaint unless it adopts or incorporates the original complaint by reference
Lytle v. Bexar County
560 F.3d 404 (5th Cir. 2009) Cited 422 times
Holding that while a jury could decide that the officer's conduct was either reasonable or not, the plaintiff's driving was not "so menacing" that "any use of force in an attempt to stop it would be objectively reasonable as a matter of law"
Krim v. BancTexas Grp., Inc.
989 F.2d 1435 (5th Cir. 1993) Cited 517 times
Holding that certain omitted information was not material, but based on the ground that the substance of the information was adequately set forth in the prospectus, not simply because the information was not firm-specific or was publicly available
Carriere v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.
893 F.2d 98 (5th Cir. 1990) Cited 423 times
Holding that a party will be deemed fraudulently joined if, after all disputed questions of fact and all ambiguities in the controlling state law are resolved in the plaintiff's favor, the plaintiff could not possibly recover against the party whose joinder is questioned
Washington v. Allstate Ins. Co.
901 F.2d 1281 (5th Cir. 1990) Cited 408 times
Finding that insurer did not waive the limitation period and emphasizing that "the parties reached neither a settlement nor a compromise; indeed, the parties never even negotiated"
Solo Serve Corp. v. Westowne Associates
929 F.2d 160 (5th Cir. 1991) Cited 383 times
Holding that unsworn allegations in plaintiff's complaint were insufficient to defeat summary judgment
Coleman v. Anco Insulations, Inc.
196 F. Supp. 3d 608 (M.D. La. 2016) Cited 38 times
Allowing opposition to be filed by co-defendant and observing that "Rule 56 says nothing about who can oppose a motion for summary judgment"
Herbert v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
911 F.2d 1044 (5th Cir. 1990) Cited 73 times
Holding that federal law controlled the applicability of the "uncalled-witness rule"
Graham v. Amoco Oil Co.
21 F.3d 643 (5th Cir. 1994) Cited 63 times
Finding no operational control or implied authorization when the "'company man' merely observed [the independent contractor's] employees performing the duties for which the governing contract gave them the 'sole' responsibility"
Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 Cited 94,611 times 650 Legal Analyses
Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37

Blaze v. McMoRan Oil & Gas L L C et al

15 Cited authorities

Holding court need not accommodate request for continuance when nonmovant has not diligently pursued the discovery of necessary evidence

Holding that an amended complaint supersedes an original complaint unless it adopts or incorporates the original complaint by reference

Holding that while a jury could decide that the officer's conduct was either reasonable or not, the plaintiff's driving was not "so menacing" that "any use of force in an attempt to stop it would be objectively reasonable as a matter of law"

Holding that certain omitted information was not material, but based on the ground that the substance of the information was adequately set forth in the prospectus, not simply because the information was not firm-specific or was publicly available

Holding that a party will be deemed fraudulently joined if, after all disputed questions of fact and all ambiguities in the controlling state law are resolved in the plaintiff's favor, the plaintiff could not possibly recover against the party whose joinder is questioned

Finding that insurer did not waive the limitation period and emphasizing that "the parties reached neither a settlement nor a compromise; indeed, the parties never even negotiated"

Holding that unsworn allegations in plaintiff's complaint were insufficient to defeat summary judgment

Allowing opposition to be filed by co-defendant and observing that "Rule 56 says nothing about who can oppose a motion for summary judgment"

Holding that federal law controlled the applicability of the "uncalled-witness rule"

Finding no operational control or implied authorization when the "'company man' merely observed [the independent contractor's] employees performing the duties for which the governing contract gave them the 'sole' responsibility"

Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37