§Why CasetextPricing

L2 Family Foundation Inc. et al v. American Bank et al

MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs Ray Lewis, L2 Family Foundation Inc., Keon Lattimore, Kadaja Holloway and Sunseria Smith

42 Cited authorities

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.

    477 U.S. 242 (1986)   Cited 236,238 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"

  2. 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"

  3. 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

  4. Bouchat v. Baltimore Ravens Football Club

    346 F.3d 514 (4th Cir. 2003)   Cited 3,439 times
    Holding that the fact that products depicted an infringing logo did not establish a connection between the infringement and the revenue from the sale of those products

  5. Harrison v. Westinghouse Savannah River Co.

    176 F.3d 776 (4th Cir. 1999)   Cited 1,987 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the plaintiff's allegation that the defendant represented that a particular project would take 1.5 years to complete, even though it knew it would take significantly longer, constituted a false statement under the FCA

  6. Beale v. Hardy

    769 F.2d 213 (4th Cir. 1985)   Cited 1,772 times
    Holding that a party "cannot create a genuine issue of material fact through mere speculation or the building of one inference upon another"

  7. Bombard v. Fort Wayne Newspapers, Inc.

    92 F.3d 560 (7th Cir. 1996)   Cited 970 times
    Holding that statements made by a doctor to a patient are not admissible under Fed.R.Evid. 803 because the rule does not except statements by the person providing medical care

  8. Lloyd v. General Motors Corp.

    397 Md. 108 (Md. 2007)   Cited 490 times
    Holding that to succeed on a private claim under the MCPA, the plaintiff must have suffered injury "as a result of" the plaintiff's "reliance on" the defendant's misrepresentation

  9. RRC Northeast, LLC v. BAA Maryland, Inc.

    413 Md. 638 (Md. 2010)   Cited 354 times
    Holding dismissal appropriate where the plaintiff failed to "allege an explicit or implicit promise by [the defendant] to be [contractually] bound" to a particular obligation

  10. Hoffman v. Stamper

    385 Md. 1 (Md. 2005)   Cited 312 times
    Holding that a plaintiff in a fraud action seeking noneconomic damages for emotional injury must show some objectively ascertainable consequential physical injury

  11. 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

  12. Rule 9 - Pleading Special Matters

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 9   Cited 38,931 times   316 Legal Analyses
    Permitting "[m]alice, intent, knowledge, and other conditions of a person's mind [to] be alleged generally"

  13. Section 2601 - Congressional findings and purpose

    12 U.S.C. § 2601   Cited 3,443 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Providing purpose of RESPA is "to effect certain changes in the settlement process for residential real estate"

  14. Section 2607 - Prohibition against kickbacks and unearned fees

    12 U.S.C. § 2607   Cited 1,320 times   53 Legal Analyses
    Holding persons who violate § 2607 jointly and severally liable to persons charged with settlement services

  15. Section 5-901 - Executory contracts

    Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-901   Cited 30 times

    Unless a contract or agreement upon which an action is brought, or some memorandum or note of it, is in writing and signed by the party to be charged or another person lawfully authorized by that party, an action may not be brought: (1) To charge a defendant on any special promise to answer for the debt, default, or miscarriage of another person; (2) To charge any person on any agreement made on consideration of marriage; or (3) On any agreement that is not to be performed within 1 year from the