17 Cited authorities

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
477 U.S. 242 (1986) Cited 237,092 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"
In re Varrasso
37 F.3d 760 (1st Cir. 1994) Cited 364 times
Holding that a court faced with competing plausible inferences may not make its choice "under the banner of summary judgment"
United States v. California
507 U.S. 746 (1993) Cited 84 times
Holding that a state statute of limitations barred the United States' cause of action as subrogee of private contractor where the United States asserted its right to subrogation after the limitations period had expired against the private contractor
Rogers v. Fair
902 F.2d 140 (1st Cir. 1990) Cited 245 times
Reviewing denial of summary judgment when coupled with denial of qualified immunity
Anderson v. Fox Hill Village Homeowners Corp.
424 Mass. 365 (Mass. 1997) Cited 147 times
Examining "the language and circumstances of the contract"
Perkins v. Brigham Women's Hosp
78 F.3d 747 (1st Cir. 1996) Cited 120 times
Holding that the individuals with whom a plaintiff seeks to be compared must have engaged in the same conduct without such differentiating or mitigating circumstances as would distinguish their conduct or the employer's treatment of them for it
Zapatha v. Dairy Mart, Inc.
381 Mass. 284 (Mass. 1980) Cited 127 times
Finding take-it-or-leave-it contracting process conscionable because termination clause was not "obscurely worded" and plaintiff had time to read and consider contract
Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Roldan Fonseca
795 F.2d 1102 (1st Cir. 1986) Cited 98 times
Ruling that an affidavit "to the effect that the facts in a certain pleading are true to the best of affiant's 'knowledge and belief' . . . is in no way the evidentiary affidavit called for" by Rule 56
Treadwell v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co.
666 F. Supp. 278 (D. Mass. 1987) Cited 57 times
Holding that "absent an independent duty imposed by law, plaintiff has not stated an action in tort by alleging injury caused by Hancock's negligent performance of its promises"
Liberty Mut. v. Natl. Consolidated Warehouses
34 Mass. App. Ct. 293 (Mass. App. Ct. 1993) Cited 33 times
Stating that " subrogee stands in the shoes of the subrogor in whose name the action is brought"
Rule 56 - Summary Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Cited 329,994 times 158 Legal Analyses
Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
Section 1332 - Diversity of citizenship; amount in controversy; costs
28 U.S.C. § 1332 Cited 112,069 times 572 Legal Analyses
Holding district court has jurisdiction over action between diverse citizens "where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000"
Section 1391 - Venue generally
28 U.S.C. § 1391 Cited 28,039 times 197 Legal Analyses
Finding that venue lies where a "substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim" occurred
Section 2284 - Three-judge court; when required; composition; procedure
28 U.S.C. § 2284 Cited 1,790 times 4 Legal Analyses
Providing for the convention of such a court whenever an action is filed challenging the constitutionality of apportionment of legislative districts
Section 2403 - Intervention by United States or a State; constitutional question
28 U.S.C. § 2403 Cited 1,057 times 3 Legal Analyses
Granting United States right to intervene in any proceeding in federal court in which the constitutionality of an Act of Congress affecting the public interest is in question and granting states right to intervene in actions challenging the constitutionality of state statutes

Great Northen Insurance Company v. Eastern Propane Gas, Inc.

17 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 court faced with competing plausible inferences may not make its choice "under the banner of summary judgment"

Holding that a state statute of limitations barred the United States' cause of action as subrogee of private contractor where the United States asserted its right to subrogation after the limitations period had expired against the private contractor

Reviewing denial of summary judgment when coupled with denial of qualified immunity

Examining "the language and circumstances of the contract"

Holding that the individuals with whom a plaintiff seeks to be compared must have engaged in the same conduct without such differentiating or mitigating circumstances as would distinguish their conduct or the employer's treatment of them for it

Finding take-it-or-leave-it contracting process conscionable because termination clause was not "obscurely worded" and plaintiff had time to read and consider contract

Ruling that an affidavit "to the effect that the facts in a certain pleading are true to the best of affiant's 'knowledge and belief' . . . is in no way the evidentiary affidavit called for" by Rule 56

Holding that "absent an independent duty imposed by law, plaintiff has not stated an action in tort by alleging injury caused by Hancock's negligent performance of its promises"

Stating that " subrogee stands in the shoes of the subrogor in whose name the action is brought"

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

Holding district court has jurisdiction over action between diverse citizens "where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000"

Finding that venue lies where a "substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim" occurred

Providing for the convention of such a court whenever an action is filed challenging the constitutionality of apportionment of legislative districts

Granting United States right to intervene in any proceeding in federal court in which the constitutionality of an Act of Congress affecting the public interest is in question and granting states right to intervene in actions challenging the constitutionality of state statutes