§Why CasetextPricing

Brown & Brown, Inc., et al., Appellants,v.Theresa A. Johnson, et al., Respondents. (AD No. CA 13-00340)

Brief

68 Cited authorities

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.

    477 U.S. 242 (1986)   Cited 236,081 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"

  2. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett

    477 U.S. 317 (1986)   Cited 216,195 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"

  3. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio

    475 U.S. 574 (1986)   Cited 113,067 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

  4. Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp

    68 N.Y.2d 320 (N.Y. 1986)   Cited 21,199 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Finding summary judgment appropriate by relying on a treating doctor's unrebutted deposition testimony

  5. Winegrad v. N.Y. Univ. Medical Center

    64 N.Y.2d 851 (N.Y. 1985)   Cited 18,103 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Reversing the motion court's order granting the defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment where they failed to demonstrate, with admissible proof, that the claims against them should be dismissed

  6. Siegel v. Lepore

    234 F.3d 1163 (11th Cir. 2000)   Cited 1,213 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that there was no irreparable injury where the harm was "wholly speculative"

  7. Vega v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.

    564 F.3d 1256 (11th Cir. 2009)   Cited 792 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Holding that to prove the existence of a contract, a plaintiff must plead, among other things, "sufficient specification of the essential terms."

  8. McDonald's Corporation v. Robertson

    147 F.3d 1301 (11th Cir. 1998)   Cited 884 times
    Holding that where the necessary facts are contested and credibility determinations must be made, relief cannot be granted without an evidentiary hearing

  9. Basso v. Miller

    40 N.Y.2d 233 (N.Y. 1976)   Cited 1,942 times
    Holding that under New York law, a landowner has a duty to maintain his property in a reasonably safe condition considering all of the circumstances including the likelihood and seriousness of the injury, and the burden of avoiding the risk

  10. Diaz v. New York Downtown Hospital

    99 N.Y.2d 542 (N.Y. 2002)   Cited 599 times
    Granting summary judgment to plaintiff, noting that plaintiff's expert failed "to provide any factual basis for her conclusion that the guidelines establish or are reflective of a generally-accepted standard or practice"

  11. Rule 65 - Injunctions and Restraining Orders

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 65   Cited 22,389 times   87 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing court's ability to enter emergency order with less than full adversary hearing and even, in appropriate circumstances, without notice

  12. Section 1125 - False designations of origin, false descriptions, and dilution forbidden

    15 U.S.C. § 1125   Cited 15,268 times   320 Legal Analyses
    Holding "the person who asserts trade dress protection has the burden of proving that the matter sought to be protected is not functional"

  13. Section 542.335 - Valid restraints of trade or commerce

    Fla. Stat. § 542.335   Cited 302 times   45 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting a court from enforcing a restrictive covenant “unless it is set forth in a writing signed by the person against whom enforcement is sought”

  14. Section 688.002 - Definitions

    Fla. Stat. § 688.002   Cited 193 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Describing the meaning of trade secret

  15. Section 542.33 - Contracts in restraint of trade valid

    Fla. Stat. § 542.33   Cited 106 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Stating that a contract in restraint of trade "may, in the discretion of a court of competent jurisdiction, be enforced by injunction."

  16. Section 154 - Language governs

    Okla. Stat. tit. 15 § 154   Cited 75 times

    The language of a contract is to govern its interpretation, if the language is clear and explicit, and does not involve an absurdity. Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 154 R.L. 1910, § 948.

  17. Section 217 - Restraint of trade

    Okla. Stat. tit. 15 § 217   Cited 28 times   3 Legal Analyses

    Every contract by which any one is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade or business of any kind, otherwise than as provided by Sections 218 and 219 of this title, or otherwise than as provided by Section 2 of this act, is to that extent void. Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 217 R.L. 1910, § 978; Amended by Laws 1989, SB 257, c. 359, §1, emerg. eff. 6/3/1989; Amended by Laws 2001 , SB 662, c. 406, §3, emerg. eff. 6/4/2001.

  18. Section 218 - Restraint of trade - Exception as to sale of goodwill

    Okla. Stat. tit. 15 § 218   Cited 16 times

    One who sells the goodwill of a business may agree with the buyer to refrain from carrying on a similar business within a specified county and any county or counties contiguous thereto, or a specified city or town or any part thereof, so long as the buyer, or any person deriving title to the goodwill from him carries on a like business therein. Provided, that any such agreement which is otherwise lawful but which exceeds the territorial limitations specified by this section may be deemed valid, but

  19. Section 219A - Noncompetition agreements

    Okla. Stat. tit. 15 § 219A   Cited 15 times   4 Legal Analyses

    A. A person who makes an agreement with an employer, whether in writing or verbally, not to compete with the employer after the employment relationship has been terminated, shall be permitted to engage in the same business as that conducted by the former employer or in a similar business as that conducted by the former employer as long as the former employee does not directly solicit the sale of goods, services or a combination of goods and services from the established customers of the former employer