§Why CasetextPricing

Pridemore v. Salix Phamaceuticals Welfare Benefit Plan, Erisa Plan Number 501, et al

MOTION for Summary Judgment

25 Cited authorities

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.

    477 U.S. 242 (1986)   Cited 235,724 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 215,904 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 112,910 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. Firestone Tire Rubber Co. v. Bruch

    489 U.S. 101 (1989)   Cited 8,837 times   54 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a denial of ERISA benefits "is to be reviewed under a de novo standard unless the benefit plan gives the administrator or fiduciary discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits or to construe the terms of the plan"

  5. Forsyth v. Barr

    19 F.3d 1527 (5th Cir. 1994)   Cited 2,738 times
    Holding that plaintiffs, asserting violations of § 2511, had not produced "evidence sufficient to demonstrate the existence of a material fact issue on whether the appellees intentionally intercepted their conversations"

  6. Topalian v. Ehrman

    954 F.2d 1125 (5th Cir. 1992)   Cited 1,995 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding that plaintiffs must support their claims with affidavits, depositions, or other corroborating evidence in order to defeat summary judgment

  7. Allen v. Rapides Parish School Bd.

    204 F.3d 619 (5th Cir. 2000)   Cited 379 times

    No. 98-31215. March 2, 2000. Michael D. Hebert (argued), Hebert Law Firm, Lafayette, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellant. Kay A. Theunissen (argued), Preis, Kraft Roy, Lafayette, LA, for Defendant-Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. Before HIGGINBOTHAM and SMITH, Circuit Judges, and FALLON, District Judge. District Judge of the Eastern District of Louisiana, sitting by designation. FALLON, District Judge: Robert D. Allen sued the Rapides Parish School

  8. Wildbur v. ARCO Chem. Co.

    974 F.2d 631 (5th Cir. 1992)   Cited 400 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plan administrator had discretionary authority where Plan stated that the administrator "shall made an independent determination of the applicant's eligibility for benefits under the Plan," which determination "shall be final and conclusive upon all persons if supported by substantial evidence in the record"

  9. Holland v. Int'l. Paper Co. Retirement Plan

    576 F.3d 240 (5th Cir. 2009)   Cited 225 times
    Holding that conflict of interest is not a significant factor if there is no history of biased claims or evidence that the conflict effected the benefits decision

  10. Corry v. Liberty Life

    499 F.3d 389 (5th Cir. 2007)   Cited 209 times
    Finding administrator's actions proper where it accepted diagnosis of fibromyalgia, but did not accept claim of disabling effects of the condition

  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 328,019 times   158 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

  12. Section 1132 - Civil enforcement

    29 U.S.C. § 1132   Cited 26,241 times   169 Legal Analyses
    Holding liable "[a]ny administrator" who fails to provide documents in a timely manner

  13. Section 621 - Congressional statement of findings and purpose

    29 U.S.C. § 621   Cited 17,432 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Finding that "older workers find themselves disadvantaged in their efforts to retain employment, and especially to regain employment when displaced from jobs"

  14. Section 1746 - Unsworn declarations under penalty of perjury

    28 U.S.C. § 1746   Cited 9,991 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Permitting the use of declarations instead

  15. Section 95-25.1 - Short title and legislative purpose; local governments preempted

    N.C. Gen. Stat. § 95-25.1   Cited 196 times   5 Legal Analyses

    (a) This Article shall be known and may be cited as the "Wage and Hour Act." (b) The public policy of this State is declared as follows: The wage levels of employees, hours of labor, payment of earned wages, and the well-being of minors are subjects of concern requiring legislation to promote the general welfare of the people of the State without jeopardizing the competitive position of North Carolina business and industry. The General Assembly declares that the general welfare of the State requires