83 Cited authorities

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett
477 U.S. 317 (1986) Cited 216,254 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"
Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project
561 U.S. 1 (2010) Cited 856 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that the plaintiffs had standing because a statute criminalized knowingly providing material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization, and the plaintiffs had provided support to groups designated as terrorist organizations and planned to provide similar support in the future
Milkovich v. Lorain Journal
497 U.S. 1 (1990) Cited 1,703 times 13 Legal Analyses
Holding that statement of "opinion" reasonably implying false and defamatory facts is subject to same culpability requirements as statement of facts
Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc.
501 U.S. 496 (1991) Cited 1,408 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that "plaintiff must demonstrate that the author in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication"
Hustler Magazine v. Falwell
485 U.S. 46 (1988) Cited 793 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that “public figures and public officials” must prove “actual malice” in addition to falsity before recovering for intentional infliction of emotional distress on the basis of speech directed at them
Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps
475 U.S. 767 (1986) Cited 689 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that where plaintiff is a private figure and newspaper articles are a matter of public concern, there is a "constitutional requirement that the plaintiff bear the burden of showing falsity, as well as fault, before recovering damages"
Fontenot v. Upjohn Co.
780 F.2d 1190 (5th Cir. 1986) Cited 2,632 times
Holding where plaintiff moves for summary judgment on issue upon which it bears burden of proof, it "must establish beyond peradventure all of the essential elements of the claim"
Mesnick v. General Elec. Co.
950 F.2d 816 (1st Cir. 1991) Cited 1,979 times
Holding that plaintiff had not provided "direct or circumstantial" evidence to overcome summary judgment
Rosenblatt v. Baer
383 U.S. 75 (1966) Cited 876 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that a definition of "actual malice" that "defined malice to include ‘ill will, evil motive, [or] intention to injure’ " was "constitutionally insufficient where discussion of public affairs is concerned"
Gardner v. Martino
563 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2009) Cited 725 times
Holding that Oregon's anti-SLAPP statute, which requires entry of a judgment of dismissal without prejudice, is applicable in federal court because it “does not directly conflict with the Federal Rules and Oregon's civil procedure rules”
Rule 56 - Summary Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Cited 328,637 times 158 Legal Analyses
Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
Rule 801 - Definitions That Apply to This Article; Exclusions from Hearsay
Fed. R. Evid. 801 Cited 19,098 times 75 Legal Analyses
Holding that such a statement must merely be made by the party and offered against that party
Section 2339B - Providing material support or resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations
18 U.S.C. § 2339B Cited 570 times 15 Legal Analyses
Clarifying the scope of “personnel”

Mar-Jac Poultry, Inc. v. Katz et al

83 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 the plaintiffs had standing because a statute criminalized knowingly providing material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization, and the plaintiffs had provided support to groups designated as terrorist organizations and planned to provide similar support in the future

Holding that statement of "opinion" reasonably implying false and defamatory facts is subject to same culpability requirements as statement of facts

Holding that "plaintiff must demonstrate that the author in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication"

Holding that “public figures and public officials” must prove “actual malice” in addition to falsity before recovering for intentional infliction of emotional distress on the basis of speech directed at them

Holding that where plaintiff is a private figure and newspaper articles are a matter of public concern, there is a "constitutional requirement that the plaintiff bear the burden of showing falsity, as well as fault, before recovering damages"

Holding where plaintiff moves for summary judgment on issue upon which it bears burden of proof, it "must establish beyond peradventure all of the essential elements of the claim"

Holding that plaintiff had not provided "direct or circumstantial" evidence to overcome summary judgment

Holding that a definition of "actual malice" that "defined malice to include ‘ill will, evil motive, [or] intention to injure’ " was "constitutionally insufficient where discussion of public affairs is concerned"

Holding that Oregon's anti-SLAPP statute, which requires entry of a judgment of dismissal without prejudice, is applicable in federal court because it “does not directly conflict with the Federal Rules and Oregon's civil procedure rules”

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

Holding that such a statement must merely be made by the party and offered against that party

Clarifying the scope of “personnel”