Mack v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.
871 F.2d 179 (1st Cir. 1989) Cited 791 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that a party may not "undertake wholly exploratory operations in the vague hope that something helpful will turn up."
United States v. Romm
455 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2006) Cited 242 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that the defendant waived a First Amendment challenge to the search of his laptop because he raised it for the first time in his reply brief, even though his opening brief had challenged the constitutionality of the search under the Fourth Amendment
Gomez v. Stop & Shop Supermarket Co.
670 F.3d 395 (1st Cir. 2012) Cited 137 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that "[a]ssumptions" made in a brief "are not a substitute for evidence" needed to avoid summary judgment
United States v. Kain
589 F.3d 945 (8th Cir. 2009) Cited 51 timesHolding that the government “is not required to introduce evidence other than the images themselves to prove they depict real rather than computer-generated children”
Testa v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
144 F.3d 173 (1st Cir. 1998) Cited 64 times 1 Legal AnalysesFinding notice of potential relevance where company destroyed purchase order for delivery on date of plaintiff's injury, and company's "defense from the start was anchored on the premise that it had no reason to anticipate any deliveries on the day in question"