§Why CasetextPricing

Ertz et al v. Mentor Worldwide Llc

MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment

13 Cited authorities

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.

    477 U.S. 242 (1986)   Cited 237,904 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 217,740 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. Scott v. Harris

    550 U.S. 372 (2007)   Cited 12,097 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

  4. Austin v. Ford Motor Co.

    86 Wis. 2d 628 (Wis. 1979)   Cited 113 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that in light of the court's development of products liability, "it is inappropriate to bring an action for breach of warranty where a tort remedy is sought"

  5. Selzer v. Brunsell Brothers

    2002 WI App. 232 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 52 times
    Holding that plaintiff had offered sufficient evidence to withstand summary judgment concerning whether statement of fact in a catalog was a warranty because the plaintiff's architect relied on the statement in selecting the product

  6. Kozlowski v. John E. Smith's Sons Co.

    87 Wis. 2d 882 (Wis. 1979)   Cited 59 times
    Holding that under strict liability and common law negligence inquiry, whether there was a duty to warn was a jury question because the defect may have been open and obvious

  7. Haase v. Badger Mining Corp.

    2003 WI App. 192 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 18 times
    Affirming an order of the circuit court for Winnebago County, Bruce K. Schmidt, Judge

  8. Kottka v. PPG Industries, Inc.

    130 Wis. 2d 499 (Wis. 1986)   Cited 32 times
    Holding that claim for loss of consortium is "personal" to the injured employee's spouse

  9. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. LG Elecs. USA, Inc.

    Case No. 10-C-520 (E.D. Wis. Nov. 13, 2012)   Cited 3 times
    Dismissing breach of implied warranty claim where plaintiff also brought negligence and strict liability claims

  10. Lukaszewicz v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp.

    510 F. Supp. 961 (E.D. Wis. 1981)   Cited 35 times
    Recognizing the doctrine under Wisconsin law, but applying an exception for oral contraceptives because federal regulations require the manufacturer to warn the patient directly

  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 331,313 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 402.725 - Statute of limitations in contracts for sale

    Wis. Stat. § 402.725   Cited 16 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (1) An action for breach of any contract for sale must be commenced within 6 years after the cause of action has accrued. By the original agreement the parties, if they are merchants, may reduce the period of limitation to not less than one year. The period of limitation may not otherwise be varied by agreement. (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