33 Cited authorities

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
477 U.S. 242 (1986) Cited 236,482 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 216,533 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 113,238 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
Scott v. Harris
550 U.S. 372 (2007) Cited 11,770 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that it is at least sometimes reasonable for an officer to intentionally collide with a suspect's vehicle during a pursuit
Little v. Liquid Air Corp.
37 F.3d 1069 (5th Cir. 1994) Cited 12,397 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that a mere scintilla of evidence does not create a genuine issue of material fact
Scindia Steam Navigation Co. v. De Los Santos
451 U.S. 156 (1981) Cited 644 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that when no contract, positive law, or custom was alleged, shipowner was not responsible for dangerous condition arising during cargo loading operations
Tubacex, Inc. v. M/V Risan
45 F.3d 951 (5th Cir. 1995) Cited 1,324 times
Approving analysis in Arktis Sky and stating, "[w]e see no conflict in the statute with applying the defense even to the nondelegable duties of the carrier
Stults v. Conoco, Inc.
76 F.3d 651 (5th Cir. 1996) Cited 1,015 times
Holding that once the movant has pointed out the absence of evidence supporting the nonmoving party's case, a party confronted with a motion for summary judgment is required to "go beyond the pleadings and designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial."
Howlett v. Birkdale Shipping Co.
512 U.S. 92 (1994) Cited 266 times
Holding that duty to warn attaches only to "latent hazards" that "would be neither obvious to nor anticipated by a skilled stevedore in the competent performance of its work"
Lejeune v. Rayne Branch Hosp
556 So. 2d 559 (La. 1990) Cited 257 times
Holding that third parties may recover damages for mental anguish in certain cases, and, notably for our purposes, recognizing that Black had characterized such damages as punitive damages
Rule 56 - Summary Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Cited 329,129 times 158 Legal Analyses
Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
Section 905 - Exclusiveness of liability
33 U.S.C. § 905 Cited 1,877 times 6 Legal Analyses
Providing that the employer’s liability for covered injuries "shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability of such employer to the employee"
Section 941 - Safety rules and regulations
33 U.S.C. § 941 Cited 114 times
Providing that the "employer shall furnish and maintain employment and places of employment which shall be reasonably safe for his employees in all employment covered by this chapter"

Granger v. Bisso Marine, Llc et al

33 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 it is at least sometimes reasonable for an officer to intentionally collide with a suspect's vehicle during a pursuit

Holding that a mere scintilla of evidence does not create a genuine issue of material fact

Holding that when no contract, positive law, or custom was alleged, shipowner was not responsible for dangerous condition arising during cargo loading operations

Approving analysis in Arktis Sky and stating, "[w]e see no conflict in the statute with applying the defense even to the nondelegable duties of the carrier

Holding that once the movant has pointed out the absence of evidence supporting the nonmoving party's case, a party confronted with a motion for summary judgment is required to "go beyond the pleadings and designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial."

Holding that duty to warn attaches only to "latent hazards" that "would be neither obvious to nor anticipated by a skilled stevedore in the competent performance of its work"

Holding that third parties may recover damages for mental anguish in certain cases, and, notably for our purposes, recognizing that Black had characterized such damages as punitive damages

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

Providing that the employer’s liability for covered injuries "shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability of such employer to the employee"

Providing that the "employer shall furnish and maintain employment and places of employment which shall be reasonably safe for his employees in all employment covered by this chapter"