Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
477 U.S. 242 (1986) Cited 235,819 times 38 Legal AnalysesHolding 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"
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett
477 U.S. 317 (1986) Cited 215,979 times 40 Legal AnalysesHolding 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"
Fernandez v. Bankers Nat. Life Ins. Co.
906 F.2d 559 (11th Cir. 1990) Cited 387 timesFinding insured's misrepresentations created triable issues because record revealed disputed facts as to whether insurer would have issued policy had it known truth regarding insured's illness
WSB-TV v. Lee
842 F.2d 1266 (11th Cir. 1988) Cited 253 timesHolding that "summary judgment may only be decided upon an adequate record."
Snook v. Trust Co. of Ga. Bank of Savannah
859 F.2d 865 (11th Cir. 1988) Cited 232 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that entry of summary judgment was improper where nonmoving party were deprived of the opportunity to obtain discovery to discover facts necessary to justify their opposition to the motion
Willmar Poultry Co. v. Morton-Norwich Products
520 F.2d 289 (8th Cir. 1975) Cited 141 timesIn Wilmar Poultry Co. v. Morton-Norwich Products, Inc., 520 F.2d 289 (8th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 915, 96 S.Ct. 1116, 47 L.Ed.2d 320 (1976), we held that summary judgment is always appropriate in antitrust cases, whether or not the complaint alleges a violation of the antitrust laws, when "the party resisting the motion... [merely relies] upon the pleadings and submits no evidence to rebut the moving party's conclusive demonstration of absence of a genuine issue of material fact."
Wallace v. Brownell Pontiac-GMC Co.
703 F.2d 525 (11th Cir. 1983) Cited 105 timesHolding that a nonmovant seeking the protection of Rule 56(f) may not rely on vague assertions that additional discovery will produce needed but unspecified facts, rather that party must demonstrate to the Court how postponement of the ruling will enable him to rebut the movant's contentions
Parrish v. Board of Com'rs of Alabama St. Bar
533 F.2d 942 (5th Cir. 1976) Cited 54 timesFinding right to disclosure of examination papers not as matter of due process, but as discovery on equal protection claims
Cowan v. J.C. Penney Co., Inc.
790 F.2d 1529 (11th Cir. 1986) Cited 35 timesIn Cowan, the court concluded that the nonmovant properly apprised the district court of the outstanding discovery request.
Morrow v. Israel Aircraft Industries, Ltd.
Case No. 2:05-cv-295-FtM-34DNF Consolidated Cases (M.D. Fla. Sep. 24, 2007) Cited 2 timesCase No. 2:05-cv-295-FtM-34DNF Consolidated Cases. September 24, 2007 ORDER MARCIA HOWARD, Magistrate Judge THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendant Global Medical Management, Inc.'s ("Global Medical") Motions for Summary Judgment and Memoranda of Law in Support Thereof, which were filed in several Member Cases on February 27, 2007. See Case No. 2:06-cv-598-FtM-34DNF (Dkt. No. 55); Case No. 2:06-cv-599-FtM-34SPC (Dkt. No. 64); Case No. 2:06-cv-603-FtM-34DNF (Dkt. No. 58) (collectively "Motions")
Rule 56 - Summary Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Cited 328,160 times 158 Legal AnalysesHolding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
Section 261 - Ownership; assignment
35 U.S.C. § 261 Cited 427 times 39 Legal AnalysesHolding that patent rights are "assignable in law by an instrument in writing"