32 Cited authorities

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
477 U.S. 242 (1986) Cited 239,938 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 219,512 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 114,772 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
Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council
490 U.S. 360 (1989) Cited 2,016 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that courts must defer to the "informed discretion" of federal agencies where the agencies’ decisions require "a high level of technical expertise" (quoting Kleppe v. Sierra Club , 427 U.S. 390, 412, 96 S.Ct. 2718, 49 L.Ed.2d 576 (1976) )
Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
462 U.S. 87 (1983) Cited 1,161 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that "a reviewing court must generally be at its most deferential" when examining an agency decision made "within its area of special expertise, at the frontiers of science"
Boudreaux v. Swift Transp. Co., Inc.
402 F.3d 536 (5th Cir. 2005) Cited 2,188 times 1 Legal Analyses
Explaining non-moving party's burden is not satisfied by "some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts, by conclusory allegations, by unsubstantiated assertions, or by only a scintilla of evidence"
Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. United States
556 U.S. 599 (2009) Cited 312 times 23 Legal Analyses
Holding "arranger" liability requires "intentional steps to dispose of a hazardous substance"
Kannady v. City of Kiowa
590 F.3d 1161 (10th Cir. 2010) Cited 427 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding a plaintiff was not prejudiced when “he clearly knew” something “would be an issue” and “had a full opportunity to present evidence to support his position”
Alexander v. Oklahoma
382 F.3d 1206 (10th Cir. 2004) Cited 350 times
Holding 12(b) order not converted to summary-judgment order unless district court relied on outside materials in rendering decision
Raytheon Constructors, Inc. v. Asarco Inc.
368 F.3d 1214 (10th Cir. 2003) Cited 175 times
Holding that Rule 60(b) applies "to final orders or judgments" which adjudicate all rights and liabilities of all parties
Rule 56 - Summary Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Cited 334,280 times 159 Legal Analyses
Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
Section 9601 - Definitions
42 U.S.C. § 9601 Cited 4,298 times 135 Legal Analyses
Adopting the definition of “disposal” contained in the Solid Waste Disposal Act
Section 9607 - Liability
42 U.S.C. § 9607 Cited 3,286 times 66 Legal Analyses
Holding certain listed persons strictly "liable" for specified cleanup costs
Section 6903 - Definitions
42 U.S.C. § 6903 Cited 681 times 21 Legal Analyses
Adopting federal definition of hazardous waste

Cyprus Amax Minerals Company v. Tci Pacific Communications, Inc. et al

32 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 courts must defer to the "informed discretion" of federal agencies where the agencies’ decisions require "a high level of technical expertise" (quoting Kleppe v. Sierra Club , 427 U.S. 390, 412, 96 S.Ct. 2718, 49 L.Ed.2d 576 (1976) )

Holding that "a reviewing court must generally be at its most deferential" when examining an agency decision made "within its area of special expertise, at the frontiers of science"

Explaining non-moving party's burden is not satisfied by "some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts, by conclusory allegations, by unsubstantiated assertions, or by only a scintilla of evidence"

Holding "arranger" liability requires "intentional steps to dispose of a hazardous substance"

Holding a plaintiff was not prejudiced when “he clearly knew” something “would be an issue” and “had a full opportunity to present evidence to support his position”

Holding 12(b) order not converted to summary-judgment order unless district court relied on outside materials in rendering decision

Holding that Rule 60(b) applies "to final orders or judgments" which adjudicate all rights and liabilities of all parties

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

Adopting the definition of “disposal” contained in the Solid Waste Disposal Act

Holding certain listed persons strictly "liable" for specified cleanup costs

Adopting federal definition of hazardous waste