Celotex Corp. v. Catrett
477 U.S. 317 (1986) Cited 220,228 times 41 Legal AnalysesHolding 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"
Allison v. McGhan Medical
184 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 1999) Cited 837 timesHolding that a district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding testimony based in part on four unreliable epidemiological studies that were "in direct contrast to over twenty other epidemiological studies"
McClain v. Metabolife Intern., Inc.
401 F.3d 1233 (11th Cir. 2005) Cited 448 times 11 Legal AnalysesHolding that the district court erroneously admitted expert testimony that a weight-loss supplement caused the plaintiff's medical problems
Glastetter v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.
252 F.3d 986 (8th Cir. 2001) Cited 201 times 4 Legal AnalysesHolding that a district court did not abuse of discretion in excluding a differential diagnosis that was "scientifically invalid"
Rider v. Sandoz Pharmaceuticals Corp.
295 F.3d 1194 (11th Cir. 2002) Cited 151 times 5 Legal AnalysesHolding expert opinion to fall short of what " Daubert requires" when finding of reliability would require "several scientifically unsupported `leaps of faith'"
In re Meridia Products Liability Litigation
328 F. Supp. 2d 791 (N.D. Ohio 2004) Cited 87 timesFinding under Ohio law that "asserting that a product is 'safe and effective' is not sufficiently clear to create an express warranty"
Richardson v. Richardson-Merrell
857 F.2d 823 (D.C. Cir. 1988) Cited 131 timesHolding that an expert's declaration, full of assertion but empty of facts and reasons, will not get a case past a motion for summary judgment, for the judge must "look behind [the expert's] ultimate conclusion . . . and analyze the adequacy of its foundation."
Graham v. American Cyanamid Co.
350 F.3d 496 (6th Cir. 2003) Cited 77 timesAffirming the district court's holding that the plaintiffs had abandoned their fraud claim by failing to respond to the defendant's summary judgment motion on the claim
Miles v. Raymond Corp.
612 F. Supp. 2d 913 (N.D. Ohio 2009) Cited 48 timesHolding that the plaintiff's common law express and implied warranty claims were preempted by the OPLA
Meister v. Medical Engineering Corp.
267 F.3d 1123 (D.C. Cir. 2001) Cited 48 timesHolding that an expert lacked reliability when “no reasonable scientist would rely on this methodology in the face of voluminous epidemiological evidence to the contrary”
Rule 56 - Summary Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Cited 335,493 times 160 Legal AnalysesHolding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
Rule 5 - Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers
Fed. R. Civ. P. 5 Cited 23,110 times 16 Legal AnalysesProviding for service via CM/ECF Systems