25 Cited authorities

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"
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio
475 U.S. 574 (1986) Cited 113,131 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
Ashland Mgt. v. Janien
82 N.Y.2d 395 (N.Y. 1993) Cited 621 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that whether trade secret is secret is generally quest on of fact
Kenford Co. v. Erie County
67 N.Y.2d 257 (N.Y. 1986) Cited 453 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that damages based on lost future profits "may not be merely speculative, possible or imaginary, but must be reasonably certain and directly traceable to the breach, not remote or the result of other intervening causes"
Saini v. International Game Technology
434 F. Supp. 2d 913 (D. Nev. 2006) Cited 239 times
Holding that the harm occasioned by disclosure of trade secrets or confidential information is sufficient to meet the irreparable harm requirement
Vestar Development II, LLC v. General Dynamics Corp.
249 F.3d 958 (9th Cir. 2001) Cited 246 times
Holding that when interpreting state law, if a state's highest court has not decided the issue and "there is no convincing evidence that the state supreme court would decide differently, a federal court is obligated to follow the decisions of the state's intermediate appellate courts."
Kenford Co. v. County of Erie
73 N.Y.2d 312 (N.Y. 1989) Cited 316 times
Holding that “unusual and extraordinary damages,” such as “lost profits,” are recoverable in contract if the damages were “brought within the contemplation of the parties as the probable result of a breach at the time of or prior to contracting”
IDT Corp. v. Tyco Group, S.A.R.L.
2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 7481 (N.Y. 2009) Cited 135 times 2 Legal Analyses
Finding that a preliminary settlement agreement did not bind the parties to their ultimate contractual goal because, based on the written terms of the agreement, it contemplated the negotiation of later agreements, the consummation of which was a precondition to a party's performance
Goodstein Construction Corp. v. City of New York
80 N.Y.2d 366 (N.Y. 1992) Cited 109 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that contract damages are ordinarily intended to give the injured party the benefit of the bargain by awarding a sum of money that will, to the extent possible, put that party in as good a position as it would have been in had the contract been performed
In Matter of Best Payphones, Inc.
432 B.R. 46 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) Cited 39 times
Finding that appellant's argument that was not raised at the appropriate time before the Bankruptcy Court “has been waived and will not be considered by this Court.”
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
Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 Cited 95,025 times 653 Legal Analyses
Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37
Rule 5 - Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers
Fed. R. Civ. P. 5 Cited 22,038 times 16 Legal Analyses
Allowing service by filing papers with the court's electronic-filing system

Halpern v. Tharaldson

25 Cited authorities

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 whether trade secret is secret is generally quest on of fact

Holding that damages based on lost future profits "may not be merely speculative, possible or imaginary, but must be reasonably certain and directly traceable to the breach, not remote or the result of other intervening causes"

Holding that the harm occasioned by disclosure of trade secrets or confidential information is sufficient to meet the irreparable harm requirement

Holding that when interpreting state law, if a state's highest court has not decided the issue and "there is no convincing evidence that the state supreme court would decide differently, a federal court is obligated to follow the decisions of the state's intermediate appellate courts."

Holding that “unusual and extraordinary damages,” such as “lost profits,” are recoverable in contract if the damages were “brought within the contemplation of the parties as the probable result of a breach at the time of or prior to contracting”

Finding that a preliminary settlement agreement did not bind the parties to their ultimate contractual goal because, based on the written terms of the agreement, it contemplated the negotiation of later agreements, the consummation of which was a precondition to a party's performance

Holding that contract damages are ordinarily intended to give the injured party the benefit of the bargain by awarding a sum of money that will, to the extent possible, put that party in as good a position as it would have been in had the contract been performed

Finding that appellant's argument that was not raised at the appropriate time before the Bankruptcy Court “has been waived and will not be considered by this Court.”

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

Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37

Allowing service by filing papers with the court's electronic-filing system