21 Cited authorities

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett
477 U.S. 317 (1986) Cited 219,798 times 41 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"
Scott v. Harris
550 U.S. 372 (2007) Cited 12,563 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that if opposing parties tell two different versions of the facts, and one is blatantly contradicted by the record, a court should not adopt that version of the facts in ruling on a motion for summary judgment
Murphy v. F.D.I.C
208 F.3d 959 (11th Cir. 2000) Cited 309 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a "transferee court should apply its own interpretation of federal law"
Boudreau v. Baughman
322 N.C. 331 (N.C. 1988) Cited 334 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that application of another state's statute of repose did not violate fundamental public policy of forum state of North Carolina
In re Managed Care Litigation
298 F. Supp. 2d 1259 (S.D. Fla. 2003) Cited 90 times
Holding that medical associations suffered injury caused by “systematic practices regarding payments directly affect[ed] medical associations who must deal with the fallout of such behavior.”
Black v. Littlejohn
312 N.C. 626 (N.C. 1985) Cited 131 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that a patient was not required to seek out a second opinion concerning the necessity of her hysterectomy either before or after surgery in order to receive the benefit of the discovery rule, since she had no way of knowing that she had suffered an actionable injury within the limitations period
In re Conagra Peanut Butter Prods. Liab. Litig.
251 F.R.D. 689 (N.D. Ga. 2008) Cited 55 times 8 Legal Analyses
Finding Defendant's voluntary refund program superior to class certification
Chicopee, Inc. v. Sims Metal Works
98 N.C. App. 423 (N.C. Ct. App. 1990) Cited 44 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that the statute of repose began to run when plaintiff textile manufacturer bought from dealer-distributor, rather than when dealer-distributor bought from manufacturer
Bryant v. Don Galloway Homes, Inc.
147 N.C. App. 655 (N.C. Ct. App. 2001) Cited 23 times
Noting that a statute of repose begins to run when the statutory triggering event occurs, "regardless of whether or not there has been an injury"
ROBINSON v. BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE
703 S.E.2d 883 (N.C. Ct. App. 2011) Cited 11 times
Finding that to bring a claim related to an allegedly defective tire, the plaintiffs had to prove that the "tire was initially purchased within six years of the filing of the complaint"
Rule 56 - Summary Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Cited 334,718 times 160 Legal Analyses
Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
Section 1407 - Multidistrict litigation
28 U.S.C. § 1407 Cited 7,106 times 106 Legal Analyses
Authorizing consolidation of pretrial proceedings for related cases filed in multiple federal districts
Section 1-52 - Three years
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52 Cited 1,090 times 16 Legal Analyses
Applying a three-year statute of limitations to an action "[u]pon a contract, obligation or liability arising out of a contract, express or implied, except those mentioned in the preceding sections"
Section 1-50 - Six years
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-50 Cited 161 times 12 Legal Analyses
Fixing the statutory period for suit at six years "after the date of initial purchase for use or consumption"
Section 361 - Lapse of time barring action arising in another state or foreign country
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 361 Cited 80 times
Providing that "[w]hen a cause of action has arisen" in a jurisdiction other than California and is time-barred under the law of that jurisdiction, the claim is also time-barred in California
Section 1-46.1 - Twelve years
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-46.1 Cited 27 times
Providing for a twelve year statute of repose in product liability actions

Kelley Lange et al v. Mentor Worldwide Llc et al

21 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 if opposing parties tell two different versions of the facts, and one is blatantly contradicted by the record, a court should not adopt that version of the facts in ruling on a motion for summary judgment

Holding that a "transferee court should apply its own interpretation of federal law"

Holding that application of another state's statute of repose did not violate fundamental public policy of forum state of North Carolina

Holding that medical associations suffered injury caused by “systematic practices regarding payments directly affect[ed] medical associations who must deal with the fallout of such behavior.”

Finding Defendant's voluntary refund program superior to class certification

Holding that the statute of repose began to run when plaintiff textile manufacturer bought from dealer-distributor, rather than when dealer-distributor bought from manufacturer

Noting that a statute of repose begins to run when the statutory triggering event occurs, "regardless of whether or not there has been an injury"

Finding that to bring a claim related to an allegedly defective tire, the plaintiffs had to prove that the "tire was initially purchased within six years of the filing of the complaint"

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

Authorizing consolidation of pretrial proceedings for related cases filed in multiple federal districts

Applying a three-year statute of limitations to an action "[u]pon a contract, obligation or liability arising out of a contract, express or implied, except those mentioned in the preceding sections"

Fixing the statutory period for suit at six years "after the date of initial purchase for use or consumption"

Providing that "[w]hen a cause of action has arisen" in a jurisdiction other than California and is time-barred under the law of that jurisdiction, the claim is also time-barred in California

Providing for a twelve year statute of repose in product liability actions