§Why CasetextPricing

Jones v. Discount Auto Parts, Llc

MOTION for summary judgment

21 Cited authorities

  1. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett

    477 U.S. 317 (1986)   Cited 216,170 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"

  2. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio

    475 U.S. 574 (1986)   Cited 113,057 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

  3. Walker v. Darby

    911 F.2d 1573 (11th Cir. 1990)   Cited 2,153 times
    Holding that circumstantial evidence may be used to prove a wiretap claim, including actual interception

  4. Bald Mountain Park, Ltd. v. Oliver

    863 F.2d 1560 (11th Cir. 1989)   Cited 256 times

    No. 88-8106. January 23, 1989. Charles H. Hyatt, John M. Hyatt, Decatur, Ga., for defendants-appellants. Michael A. Cole, Vincent, Chorey, Taylor Feil, John L. Taylor, Jr., Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiff-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. Before RONEY, Chief Judge, COX, Circuit Judge, and MORGAN, Senior Circuit Judge. MORGAN, Senior Circuit Judge: This is a suit to quiet title to real property located in Towns County, Georgia. Appellee Bald Mountain

  5. Pendergast v. Sprint Nextel Corp.

    592 F.3d 1119 (11th Cir. 2010)   Cited 138 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Finding that Florida law requires a "showing of both procedural and substantive unconscionability" to invalidate a contract

  6. Batey v. Stone

    24 F.3d 1330 (11th Cir. 1994)   Cited 184 times
    Holding that McDonnell Douglas and Burdine “provide the appropriate framework for evaluating claims of sex-based discrimination under Title VII”

  7. Sweeney v. Erving

    228 U.S. 233 (1913)   Cited 419 times
    In Sweeney v. Erving, 1913, 228 U.S. 233, 33 S.Ct. 416, 57 L.Ed. 815, which involved an injury to the plaintiff by X-ray burns, the trial court was asked to instruct the jury, in substance, that the occurrence of the accident was itself evidence of negligence and cast upon the defendant the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the injury was not caused by his negligence.

  8. Hill v. Spiegel, Inc.

    708 F.2d 233 (6th Cir. 1983)   Cited 123 times
    Holding that it was reversible error to admit hearsay evidence where there was no evidence that the employees who made hearsay declarations were acting within the scope of their employment

  9. United States v. Portsmouth Paving Corp.

    694 F.2d 312 (4th Cir. 1982)   Cited 108 times
    Holding a secretary's account of her employer's statement was admissible under federal rule 801(d)(D) where, in the course of performing her job duties, she had relayed a message from her employer to an associate on the telephone

  10. Feinman v. Target Corp.

    CASE NO. 11-62480-CIV-MARRA/HOPKINS (S.D. Fla. Dec. 6, 2012)   Cited 13 times
    In Feinman, the plaintiff slipped and fell, and although she did not know what she slipped on, she testified that she felt something was under her shoe.

  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 328,503 times   158 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

  12. Section 22 - Records and documents are public; exception for ballots and voter address

    Me. Stat. tit. 21-A § 22   Cited 1 times

    1.Public records. All lists, books, documents and records required to be prepared by or filed with a public official are public records, except as otherwise provided in this Title. Public records are open to public inspection during regular business hours under proper protective regulations made by the official charged with their custody. [2005, c. 453, §5(AMD).] 2.Ballots. Official ballots, whether in paper form or in an electronic or image format, are not public records and may be inspected only