43 Cited authorities

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
477 U.S. 242 (1986) Cited 242,291 times 39 Legal Analyses
Holding that summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence is "so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law"
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett
477 U.S. 317 (1986) Cited 221,548 times 41 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 115,829 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 12,734 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that a nonmovant's summary judgment burden is not satisfied with "some meta-physical doubt as to the material facts, by conclusory allegations, by unsubstantiated assertions, or by only a scintilla of evidence"
TIG Insurance v. Sedgwick James of Washington
276 F.3d 754 (5th Cir. 2002) Cited 1,413 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 987 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 610 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 485 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 462 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 480 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 337,668 times 161 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 16,970 times 135 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 188 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 166 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 appropriate when the evidence is "so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law"

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 nonmovant's summary judgment burden is not satisfied with "some meta-physical doubt as to the material facts, by conclusory allegations, by unsubstantiated assertions, or by only a scintilla of evidence"

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