42 Cited authorities

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
477 U.S. 242 (1986) Cited 235,698 times 38 Legal Analyses
Holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if "the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party"
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett
477 U.S. 317 (1986) Cited 215,883 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"
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio
475 U.S. 574 (1986) Cited 112,902 times 38 Legal Analyses
Holding 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
Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife
504 U.S. 555 (1992) Cited 27,710 times 138 Legal Analyses
Holding that the elements of standing "must be supported in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof"
Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc.
528 U.S. 167 (2000) Cited 7,118 times 25 Legal Analyses
Holding that plaintiffs who curtailed their recreational activities on a river due to reasonable concerns about the effect of pollutant discharges into that river had standing
Taylor v. List
880 F.2d 1040 (9th Cir. 1989) Cited 8,975 times
Holding that no § 1983 liability exists absent personal participation
Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc.
281 F.3d 1054 (9th Cir. 2002) Cited 2,791 times
Holding that summary judgment was appropriate even where the decision-maker's reason is "foolish or trivial or even baseless"
In re Tobacco II Cases
46 Cal.4th 298 (Cal. 2009) Cited 1,202 times 35 Legal Analyses
Holding class representatives had standing to challenge common marketing of cigarettes despite differences in the advertisements or statements on which class members relied
Mazza v. American Honda Motor Co.
666 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2012) Cited 966 times 51 Legal Analyses
Holding that false advertising "class must be defined in such a way as to include only members who were exposed to advertising that is alleged to be materially misleading"
Lazar v. Superior Court
12 Cal.4th 631 (Cal. 1996) Cited 1,657 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that justifiable reliance is a required element of a fraud claim
Rule 56 - Summary Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Cited 327,983 times 158 Legal Analyses
Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
Rule 23 - Class Actions
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 Cited 34,808 times 1232 Legal Analyses
Holding that, to certify a class, the court must find that "questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members"
Section 17531 - Unlawful advertising of secondhand or used merchandise or defective merchandise
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17531 Cited 9 times
It is unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation, in any newspaper, magazine, circular, form letter or any open publication, published, distributed, or circulated in this state, including over the Internet, or on any billboard, card, label, or other advertising medium, or by means of any other advertising device, to advertise, call attention to or give publicity to the sale of any merchandise, which merchandise is secondhand or used merchandise, or which merchandise is defective in any manner
Section 2013 - Post-conviction relief
Me. Stat. tit. 17-A § 2013
If, in any judicial proceeding following conviction, a court issues a final judgment invalidating the conviction, the judgment may include an order that any or all of a restitution payment that the convicted person paid pursuant to the sentence for that conviction be returned to the convicted person. [2019, c. 113, Pt. A, §2(NEW).] 17-A M.R.S. § 2013 Added by 2019, c. 113,§ A-2, eff. 5/16/2019.

Adkins et al v. Apple Inc et al

42 Cited authorities

Holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if "the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party"

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, 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

Holding that the elements of standing "must be supported in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof"

Holding that plaintiffs who curtailed their recreational activities on a river due to reasonable concerns about the effect of pollutant discharges into that river had standing

Holding that no § 1983 liability exists absent personal participation

Holding that summary judgment was appropriate even where the decision-maker's reason is "foolish or trivial or even baseless"

Holding class representatives had standing to challenge common marketing of cigarettes despite differences in the advertisements or statements on which class members relied

Holding that false advertising "class must be defined in such a way as to include only members who were exposed to advertising that is alleged to be materially misleading"

Holding that justifiable reliance is a required element of a fraud claim

Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

Holding that, to certify a class, the court must find that "questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members"