32 Cited authorities

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"
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
Insolia v. Philip Morris Inc.
216 F.3d 596 (7th Cir. 2000) Cited 1,221 times
Holding that, although "[t]he plaintiffs are in a predicament because state law in this area is stunted by the ability of [the defendants] to remove cases under diversity jurisdiction ... that does not justify the federal courts imposing a new tort claim on Wisconsin"
American Soc. of M. E.'s v. Hydrolevel Corp.
456 U.S. 556 (1982) Cited 395 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding nonprofit organization liable regardless of whether its agents acted with intent to benefit organization, provided restraint had anticompetitive effects
Shager v. Upjohn Co.
913 F.2d 398 (7th Cir. 1990) Cited 502 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that a supervisor's age-based prejudice tainted a committee's decision to fire the plaintiff because the supervisor's portrayal of the plaintiff to the committee in the worst possible light "may well have been decisive" in light of the fact that the committee's deliberations were "brief, perhaps perfunctory" and none of the committee members could remember having considered the issue of the plaintiffs termination
Ramirez v. Yosemite Water Co.
20 Cal.4th 785 (Cal. 1999) Cited 340 times 17 Legal Analyses
Holding that when a court evaluates if an employee was primarily engaged in exempt duties for purposes of the administrative exemption to overtime pay, it must consider "how the employee actually spends his or her time" and also "whether the employee's practice diverges from the employer's realistic expectations"
Hickton v. Enter. Holdings, Inc. (In re Enter. Rent–A–Car Wage & Hour Emp't Practices Litig.)
683 F.3d 462 (3d Cir. 2012) Cited 212 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding an alleged employer must exercise "significant control" to be considered a joint employer under the FLSA
Hopkins v. Cornerstone Am.
545 F.3d 338 (5th Cir. 2008) Cited 199 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that a plaintiff who had pled independent-contractor status in another suit was not estopped from suing his employer as an employee
Arriaga v. Fla. Pac. Farms, L.L.C
305 F.3d 1228 (11th Cir. 2002) Cited 191 times
Holding that FLSA requirements apply to H-2A workers, including the requirement that all wages be provided "free and clear" of improper deductions
Patterson v. Domino's Pizza, LLC
60 Cal.4th 474 (Cal. 2014) Cited 118 times 19 Legal Analyses
Holding that a franchisor is liable vicariously in tort only "if it has retained or assumed the right of general control over the relevant day-to-day operations at its franchised locations"
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

Pope, Andrew v. Espeseth, Inc. et al

32 Cited authorities

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"

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

Holding that, although "[t]he plaintiffs are in a predicament because state law in this area is stunted by the ability of [the defendants] to remove cases under diversity jurisdiction ... that does not justify the federal courts imposing a new tort claim on Wisconsin"

Holding nonprofit organization liable regardless of whether its agents acted with intent to benefit organization, provided restraint had anticompetitive effects

Holding an alleged employer must exercise "significant control" to be considered a joint employer under the FLSA

Holding that a plaintiff who had pled independent-contractor status in another suit was not estopped from suing his employer as an employee

Holding that FLSA requirements apply to H-2A workers, including the requirement that all wages be provided "free and clear" of improper deductions

Holding that a franchisor is liable vicariously in tort only "if it has retained or assumed the right of general control over the relevant day-to-day operations at its franchised locations"

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