§Why CasetextPricing

Cole v. Mentor Corporation et al

MOTION for Summary Judgment

32 Cited authorities

  1. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett

    477 U.S. 317 (1986)   Cited 217,766 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"

  2. Scott v. Harris

    550 U.S. 372 (2007)   Cited 12,135 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that if opposing parties tell two different versions of the facts, and one is blatantly contradicted by the record, a court should not adopt that version of the facts in ruling on a motion for summary judgment

  3. Murphy v. F.D.I.C

    208 F.3d 959 (11th Cir. 2000)   Cited 309 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a "transferee court should apply its own interpretation of federal law"

  4. Avis Rent A Car Systems, Inc. v. Heilman

    876 So. 2d 1111 (Ala. 2003)   Cited 153 times
    Holding that unjust enrichment is an equitable remedy

  5. Guinn v. Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals LP

    602 F.3d 1245 (11th Cir. 2010)   Cited 115 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a plaintiff's expert's differential diagnosis “must at least consider other factors that could have been the sole cause of the plaintiff's injury”

  6. In re Mentor Corp. Obtape Transobturator Sling Prods. Liab. Litig.

    711 F. Supp. 2d 1348 (M.D. Ga. 2010)   Cited 95 times
    Finding a triable issue on adequacy of warning where the product had a greater propensity to cause complications and was associated with more severe complications than other products

  7. Jepson v. General Cas. Co. of Wisconsin

    513 N.W.2d 467 (Minn. 1994)   Cited 142 times
    Finding that maintenance of interstate order weighs in favor of applying foreign law over Minnesota law because the foreign state had "the authority to regulate the terms of insurance" in that state

  8. Bilotta v. Kelley Co., Inc.

    346 N.W.2d 616 (Minn. 1984)   Cited 184 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding manufacturer may not delegate duty to design reasonably safe product

  9. Southtown Plumbing v. Har-Ned Lumber

    493 N.W.2d 137 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 133 times
    Holding that subcontractors do not have a claim for unjust enrichment when they fail to pursue their available statutory remedy

  10. Standard Alliance Ind. v. Black Clawson Co.

    587 F.2d 813 (6th Cir. 1978)   Cited 185 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a warranty extended to future performance where it said that the equipment "will be free from defects in workmanship and material" and that if "any part be found within one year from date of delivery to have been defective ... the Seller will replace or repair such part"

  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 331,402 times   158 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

  12. Section 336.2-725 - STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN CONTRACTS FOR SALE

    Minn. Stat. § 336.2-725   Cited 85 times
    Establishing four-year limitations period for warranty claims

  13. Section 7-2-725 - Statute of limitations in contracts for sale

    Ala. Code § 7-2-725   Cited 45 times

    (1) An action for breach of any contract for sale must be commenced within four years after the cause of action has accrued. By the original agreement the parties may reduce the period of limitation to not less than one year but may not extend it. (2) A cause of action accrues when the breach occurs, regardless of the aggrieved party's lack of knowledge of the breach. A breach of warranty occurs when tender of delivery is made, except that where a warranty explicitly extends to future performance