23 Cited authorities

Comm. for the First Amendment v. Campbell
962 F.2d 1517 (10th Cir. 1992) Cited 577 times
Holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by implicitly denying a Rule 56(d) motion through the grant of summary judgment
Krim v. BancTexas Grp., Inc.
989 F.2d 1435 (5th Cir. 1993) Cited 517 times
Holding that certain omitted information was not material, but based on the ground that the substance of the information was adequately set forth in the prospectus, not simply because the information was not firm-specific or was publicly available
Contemporary Mission, v. U.S. Postal Service
648 F.2d 97 (2d Cir. 1981) Cited 367 times
Finding that "opposing party's mere hope that further evidence may develop prior to trial is an insufficient basis upon which to justify the denial of [a summary judgment] motion."
Bancorp Serv., L.L.C. v. Hartford Life Ins. Co.
359 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2004) Cited 187 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a claim will not be held invalid if the "meaning of the claim is discernible, even though the task may be formidable and the conclusion may be one over which reasonable persons will disagree"
Genetics Institute, Inc. v. Amgen, Inc.
502 U.S. 856 (1991) Cited 80 times
Holding that Connecticut's overtime wage law is not preempted by FLSA
Brookshire Bros. v. Smith
424 U.S. 915 (1976) Cited 115 times
Holding not clearly erroneous the district court's finding that a plan existed for police officers to take alleged shoplifters into custody, such that the store was an actor under color of law
Humphreys v. Roche Biomedical Laboratories
990 F.2d 1078 (8th Cir. 1993) Cited 187 times
Finding no abuse of discretion in court's grant of summary judgment where party failed to file any affidavit specifying why further discovery is necessary
View Engineering v. Robotic Vision Systems
208 F.3d 981 (Fed. Cir. 2000) Cited 146 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that performing a pre-filing assessment of the basis of each infringement claim is . . . extremely important. In bringing a claim of infringement, the patent holder, if challenged, must be prepared to demonstrate to both the court and the alleged infringer exactly why it believed before filing the claim that it had a reasonable chance of proving infringement
Moore U.S.A. v. Standard Register Co.
229 F.3d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2000) Cited 141 times
Holding that a "minority" cannot be equivalent to a "majority," its very antithesis
Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp.
405 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2005) Cited 98 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that claim 22, which depends from nonexistent claim 38, could be corrected because the error in the dependency was evident based on the face of the patent and that the correct antecedent claim was apparent from the prosecution history
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 11 - Signing Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to the Court; Sanctions
Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 Cited 35,777 times 141 Legal Analyses
Holding an "unrepresented party" to the same standard as an attorney
Rule 34 - Producing Documents, Electronically Stored Information, and Tangible Things, or Entering onto Land, for Inspection and Other Purposes
Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 Cited 13,130 times 147 Legal Analyses
Finding that the rules related to electronic discovery were "not meant to create a routine right of direct access to a party's electronic information system, although such access may be justified in some circumstances."
Rule 33 - Interrogatories to Parties
Fed. R. Civ. P. 33 Cited 10,899 times 21 Legal Analyses
Adopting Rule 30(b)

Metropolitan Life v. Bancorp Services LLC, et al

23 Cited authorities

Holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by implicitly denying a Rule 56(d) motion through the grant of summary judgment

Holding that certain omitted information was not material, but based on the ground that the substance of the information was adequately set forth in the prospectus, not simply because the information was not firm-specific or was publicly available

Finding that "opposing party's mere hope that further evidence may develop prior to trial is an insufficient basis upon which to justify the denial of [a summary judgment] motion."

Holding that a claim will not be held invalid if the "meaning of the claim is discernible, even though the task may be formidable and the conclusion may be one over which reasonable persons will disagree"

Holding that Connecticut's overtime wage law is not preempted by FLSA

Holding not clearly erroneous the district court's finding that a plan existed for police officers to take alleged shoplifters into custody, such that the store was an actor under color of law

Finding no abuse of discretion in court's grant of summary judgment where party failed to file any affidavit specifying why further discovery is necessary

Holding that a "minority" cannot be equivalent to a "majority," its very antithesis

Holding that claim 22, which depends from nonexistent claim 38, could be corrected because the error in the dependency was evident based on the face of the patent and that the correct antecedent claim was apparent from the prosecution history

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

Holding an "unrepresented party" to the same standard as an attorney

Finding that the rules related to electronic discovery were "not meant to create a routine right of direct access to a party's electronic information system, although such access may be justified in some circumstances."

Adopting Rule 30(b)