§Why CasetextPricing

Freeman et al v. Wilshire Commercial Capital L.L.C.

MOTION for SUMMARY JUDGMENT

29 Cited authorities

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.

    477 U.S. 242 (1986)   Cited 236,238 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 216,328 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. Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins

    578 U.S. 330 (2016)   Cited 7,409 times   437 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a statutory violation, without more, did not give rise to Article III standing

  4. Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife

    504 U.S. 555 (1992)   Cited 27,840 times   138 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the elements of standing "must be supported in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof"

  5. Daimlerchrysler Corp. v. Cuno

    547 U.S. 332 (2006)   Cited 2,647 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an injury a plaintiff "suffers in some indefinite way in common with people generally" is not a cognizable injury-in-fact

  6. Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona

    520 U.S. 43 (1997)   Cited 2,516 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the plaintiff's challenge to a state law affecting the performance of her job duties was mooted when she left state employment

  7. Raines v. Byrd

    521 U.S. 811 (1997)   Cited 1,766 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding specifically and only that "individual members of Congress [lack] Article III standing"

  8. Steffel v. Thompson

    415 U.S. 452 (1974)   Cited 2,438 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Younger abstention is inappropriate when no state-court proceeding "is pending at the time the federal complaint is filed," because in that circumstance "federal intervention does not result in duplicative legal proceedings or disruption of the state criminal justice system"; it cannot "be interpreted as reflecting negatively upon state court's ability to enforce constitutional principles"; and the absence of a pending state-court proceeding deprives "the federal plaintiff [of] a concrete opportunity to vindicate his constitutional rights"

  9. American Pipe Construction Co. v. Utah

    414 U.S. 538 (1974)   Cited 2,115 times   162 Legal Analyses
    Holding the commencement of a class action "suspends the applicable statute of limitations as to all asserted members of the class who would have been parties had the suit been permitted to continue as a class action"

  10. National Organization for Women, Inc. v. Scheidler

    510 U.S. 249 (1994)   Cited 949 times
    Holding that "RICO contains no economic motive requirement"

  11. Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 12   Cited 345,981 times   922 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

  12. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 328,775 times   158 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

  13. Section 227 - Restrictions on use of telephone equipment

    47 U.S.C. § 227   Cited 5,664 times   733 Legal Analyses
    Granting exclusive jurisdiction to federal courts over actions brought by state attorney generals