20 Cited authorities

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
477 U.S. 242 (1986) Cited 236,210 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 216,309 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 113,121 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
New Hampshire v. Maine
532 U.S. 742 (2001) Cited 4,543 times 17 Legal Analyses
Holding that under the doctrine of judicial estoppel, “New Hampshire is equitably barred from asserting—contrary to its position in the 1970's litigation—that the inland Piscataqua River boundary runs along the Maine shore”
Arpin v. Santa Clara Valley Transp. Agency
261 F.3d 912 (9th Cir. 2001) Cited 1,783 times
Holding that "conclusory allegations unsupported by factual data are insufficient to defeat summary judgment motion"
Hutchinson v. U.S.
838 F.2d 390 (9th Cir. 1988) Cited 1,757 times
Holding that officials may be deliberately indifferent if they "deny, delay or intentionally interfere with medical treatment," or if the method by which they provide care is inadequate
Hamilton v. State Farm Fire Cas. Co.
270 F.3d 778 (9th Cir. 2001) Cited 922 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that an initial “discharge of debt by a bankruptcy court, under these circumstances, is sufficient acceptance to provide a basis for judicial estoppel, even if the discharge is later vacated”
IN THE MATTER OF COASTAL PLAINS, INC. v. MIMS
179 F.3d 197 (5th Cir. 1999) Cited 971 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that a debtor has duty to disclose all potential causes of action
Intel Corp. v. Hartford Acc. Indem. Co.
952 F.2d 1551 (9th Cir. 1991) Cited 1,056 times
Holding that the "owned property" exclusion does not bar coverage of the costs of preventing future harm to third-party property, but not addressing how imminent that threat must be to fall within the exclusion
Bradley v. Harcourt, Brace & Co.
104 F.3d 267 (9th Cir. 1996) Cited 553 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the plaintiff's evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to rebut the strong same-actor inference
Section 521 - Debtor's duties
11 U.S.C. § 521 Cited 3,605 times 18 Legal Analyses
Requiring debtor to file a schedule of assets and liabilities

Garvey v. Kmart Corporation

20 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 under the doctrine of judicial estoppel, “New Hampshire is equitably barred from asserting—contrary to its position in the 1970's litigation—that the inland Piscataqua River boundary runs along the Maine shore”

Holding that "conclusory allegations unsupported by factual data are insufficient to defeat summary judgment motion"

Holding that officials may be deliberately indifferent if they "deny, delay or intentionally interfere with medical treatment," or if the method by which they provide care is inadequate

Holding that an initial “discharge of debt by a bankruptcy court, under these circumstances, is sufficient acceptance to provide a basis for judicial estoppel, even if the discharge is later vacated”

Holding that a debtor has duty to disclose all potential causes of action

Holding that the "owned property" exclusion does not bar coverage of the costs of preventing future harm to third-party property, but not addressing how imminent that threat must be to fall within the exclusion

Holding that the plaintiff's evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to rebut the strong same-actor inference

Requiring debtor to file a schedule of assets and liabilities