49 Cited authorities

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett
477 U.S. 317 (1986) Cited 216,328 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"
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
Scott v. Harris
550 U.S. 372 (2007) Cited 11,730 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that it is at least sometimes reasonable for an officer to intentionally collide with a suspect's vehicle during a pursuit
Goenaga v. March of Dimes Defects Foundation
51 F.3d 14 (2d Cir. 1995) Cited 1,671 times
Holding that a movant's burden is satisfied if he can point to an absence of evidence to support an essential element of the nonmoving party's claim
Romero v. International Term. Co.
358 U.S. 354 (1959) Cited 958 times
Holding that the district court had pendant jurisdiction to consider maintenance and cure claims brought "by a complaint at law rather than by a libel in admiralty" because the complaint also alleged a Jones Act violation, which was within the district court's jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Lauritzen v. Larsen
345 U.S. 571 (1953) Cited 744 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that because " cause of action under [federal] law was asserted here, ... the [federal] court had power to determine whether it was or was not well founded in law and in fact"
Hellenic Lines v. Rhoditis
398 U.S. 306 (1970) Cited 342 times
Holding “base of operations” requirement fulfilled where defendant kept its largest office in New York, was 95% owned by a U.S. domiciliary who had lived in the United States for twenty-five years, and derived its “entire income” from shipping cargo to or from the United States
Hamilton v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp.
96 N.Y.2d 222 (N.Y. 2001) Cited 396 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that handgun manufacturers do not owe a duty of reasonable care in the marketing and distribution of their handguns to persons injured or killed through the use of illegally obtained handguns, but leaving open the question of retailers' liability
Credit Corp. v. Andersen Co.
65 N.Y.2d 536 (N.Y. 1985) Cited 472 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that multiple, direct and substantive communications and personal meetings with the relying customers established a relationship sufficiently approaching privity
Burt Rigid Box v. Travelers Property Cas. Corp.
302 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2002) Cited 282 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that "estoppel requires a showing of prejudice to the insured"
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
Section 3316 - Classification societies
46 U.S.C. § 3316 Cited 2 times
(a) Each department, agency, and instrumentality of the United States Government shall recognize the American Bureau of Shipping as its agent in classifying vessels owned by the Government and in matters related to classification, as long as the Bureau is maintained as an organization having no capital stock and paying no dividends. The Secretary and the Secretary of Transportation each shall appoint one representative (except when the Secretary is the Secretary of Transportation, in which case the

Reino De Espana v. Bureau of Shipping, et al

49 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, 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 it is at least sometimes reasonable for an officer to intentionally collide with a suspect's vehicle during a pursuit

Holding that a movant's burden is satisfied if he can point to an absence of evidence to support an essential element of the nonmoving party's claim

Holding that the district court had pendant jurisdiction to consider maintenance and cure claims brought "by a complaint at law rather than by a libel in admiralty" because the complaint also alleged a Jones Act violation, which was within the district court's jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331

Holding that because " cause of action under [federal] law was asserted here, ... the [federal] court had power to determine whether it was or was not well founded in law and in fact"

Holding “base of operations” requirement fulfilled where defendant kept its largest office in New York, was 95% owned by a U.S. domiciliary who had lived in the United States for twenty-five years, and derived its “entire income” from shipping cargo to or from the United States

Holding that handgun manufacturers do not owe a duty of reasonable care in the marketing and distribution of their handguns to persons injured or killed through the use of illegally obtained handguns, but leaving open the question of retailers' liability

Holding that multiple, direct and substantive communications and personal meetings with the relying customers established a relationship sufficiently approaching privity

Holding that "estoppel requires a showing of prejudice to the insured"

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