43 Cited authorities

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
477 U.S. 242 (1986) Cited 236,142 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"
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett
477 U.S. 317 (1986) Cited 216,254 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 113,092 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
Little v. Liquid Air Corp.
37 F.3d 1069 (5th Cir. 1994) Cited 12,374 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that a mere scintilla of evidence does not create a genuine issue of material fact
TIG Insurance v. Sedgwick James of Washington
276 F.3d 754 (5th Cir. 2002) Cited 1,370 times
Holding that conclusory assertions are insufficient to avoid summary judgment
Johnson Higgins Inc. v. Kenneco Energy
962 S.W.2d 507 (Tex. 1998) Cited 965 times
Holding that close relationship between claims under Texas Insurance Code and DTPA required application of DTPA's two-year limitations period
Burrell v. Dr. Pepper/Seven Up Bottling Group, Inc.
482 F.3d 408 (5th Cir. 2007) Cited 596 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that jury could infer pretext from unexplained inconsistency
Fordoche, Inc. v. Texaco, Inc.
463 F.3d 388 (5th Cir. 2006) Cited 484 times
No. 05-30857. August 31, 2006. Joseph R. Ward, Jr. (argued), Ward Condrey, Covington, LA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants. Loulan Joseph Pitre, Jr. (argued), Gordon, Arata, McCollam, Duplantis Eagan, New Orleans, LA, B.J. Duplantis, Samuel Edgar Masur, Gordon, Arata, McCollam, Duplantis Eagan, Lafayette, LA, for Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana. Before KING, BARKSDALE and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. DENNIS, Circuit Judge: This case deals
Lopez v. Muñoz, Hockema Reed, L.L.P.
22 S.W.3d 857 (Tex. 2000) Cited 456 times
Holding that for an ambiguity to exist, more than conflicting interpretations must exist; such interpretations must both be reasonable
Transamerica Ins. Co., v. Avenell
66 F.3d 715 (5th Cir. 1995) Cited 461 times
Holding that an attorney's detailed affidavit, which was competent summary judgement evidence, demonstrated the existence of a genuine issue of material fact regarding a claim for attorney's fees
Rule 56 - Summary Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Cited 328,637 times 158 Legal Analyses
Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
Rule 30 - Depositions by Oral Examination
Fed. R. Civ. P. 30 Cited 16,069 times 126 Legal Analyses
Upholding a district court's decision not to consider the plaintiff's deposition errata sheets in opposition to a motion for summary judgment when they were untimely
Section 33.002 - Applicability
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 33.002 Cited 178 times
Applying only to a "cause of action based on tort in which a defendant, settling person, or responsible third party is found responsible for a percentage of the harm for which relief is sought" or an action brought under the DTPA "in which a defendant, settling person, or responsible third party is found responsible for a percentage of the harm for which relief is sought"
Section 134A.002 - Definitions
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 134A.002 Cited 150 times 7 Legal Analyses
Recognizing that trade secret can be misappropriated from third party who has duty to maintain its secrecy or limit its use

Roberts v. Overby-Seawell Company et al

43 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 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 a mere scintilla of evidence does not create a genuine issue of material fact

Holding that conclusory assertions are insufficient to avoid summary judgment

Holding that close relationship between claims under Texas Insurance Code and DTPA required application of DTPA's two-year limitations period

Holding that jury could infer pretext from unexplained inconsistency

Holding that for an ambiguity to exist, more than conflicting interpretations must exist; such interpretations must both be reasonable

Holding that an attorney's detailed affidavit, which was competent summary judgement evidence, demonstrated the existence of a genuine issue of material fact regarding a claim for attorney's fees

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

Upholding a district court's decision not to consider the plaintiff's deposition errata sheets in opposition to a motion for summary judgment when they were untimely

Recognizing that trade secret can be misappropriated from third party who has duty to maintain its secrecy or limit its use