65 Cited authorities

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
477 U.S. 242 (1986) Cited 236,238 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 216,328 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"
Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp.
486 U.S. 800 (1988) Cited 3,128 times 21 Legal Analyses
Holding that the appeal belonged before the regional circuit because the claims did not arise under patent law
Atlantic Richfield Co. v. USA Petroleum Co.
495 U.S. 328 (1990) Cited 835 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that an antitrust injury is an injury that is "attributable to an anti-competitive aspect of the practice under scrutiny"
Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc.
551 U.S. 877 (2007) Cited 459 times 74 Legal Analyses
Holding that vertical agreements are not per se illegal
Brown Shoe Co. v. United States
370 U.S. 294 (1962) Cited 1,819 times 32 Legal Analyses
Holding judgment final and appealable where district court passed on every prayer for relief in the complaint and ordered full divestiture of stock, although court had not yet approved a divestiture plan
Jefferson Parish Hospital Dist. No. 2 v. Hyde
466 U.S. 2 (1984) Cited 802 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that "any inquiry into the validity of a tying arrangement must focus on the market or markets in which the two products are sold, for that is where the anticompetitive forcing has its impact"
National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma
468 U.S. 85 (1984) Cited 664 times 31 Legal Analyses
Holding that NCAA restrictions on televising college football games are subject to Rule of Reason analysis for the “critical” reason that “horizontal restraints on competition are essential if the product is to be available at all”
Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp.
472 U.S. 585 (1985) Cited 606 times 33 Legal Analyses
Holding that predatory conduct to attain or preserve a monopoly is a prerequisite to a finding of monopolization or attempted monopolization
Hugh v. Butler Cty. Family YMCA
418 F.3d 265 (3d Cir. 2005) Cited 1,049 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that one's "satisfactory performance of duties, leading to a promotion, does establish a plaintiff's qualification for a job"
Rule 56 - Summary Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Cited 328,775 times 158 Legal Analyses
Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

Castro, M.D., P.A. v. Sanofi Pasteur Inc.

65 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 the appeal belonged before the regional circuit because the claims did not arise under patent law

Holding that an antitrust injury is an injury that is "attributable to an anti-competitive aspect of the practice under scrutiny"

Holding that vertical agreements are not per se illegal

Holding judgment final and appealable where district court passed on every prayer for relief in the complaint and ordered full divestiture of stock, although court had not yet approved a divestiture plan

Holding that "any inquiry into the validity of a tying arrangement must focus on the market or markets in which the two products are sold, for that is where the anticompetitive forcing has its impact"

Holding that NCAA restrictions on televising college football games are subject to Rule of Reason analysis for the “critical” reason that “horizontal restraints on competition are essential if the product is to be available at all”

Holding that predatory conduct to attain or preserve a monopoly is a prerequisite to a finding of monopolization or attempted monopolization

Holding that one's "satisfactory performance of duties, leading to a promotion, does establish a plaintiff's qualification for a job"

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