47 Cited authorities

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.

    477 U.S. 242 (1986)   Cited 235,698 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 215,883 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 112,902 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. Coppedge v. United States

    369 U.S. 438 (1962)   Cited 27,104 times
    Holding that a district court's certificate that an appeal is not taken in good faith "is not conclusive, although it is, of course, entitled to weight"
  5. Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

    572 F.3d 677 (9th Cir. 2009)   Cited 3,130 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding that plaintiffs' general statement that defendant exercised control over their daily employment to be conclusory and affirming dismissal
  6. Callihan v. Schneider

    178 F.3d 800 (6th Cir. 1999)   Cited 884 times
    Holding that non-prisoner appellant's civil rights action "must be dismissed without prejudice until the state proceedings have resulted in a not guilty verdict, or any conviction has been overturned on appeal or questioned in a federal habeas corpus petition"
  7. Floyd v. U.S. Postal Service

    105 F.3d 274 (6th Cir. 1997)   Cited 846 times
    Holding § 1915 precluded consideration of a Rule 24 motion in light of § 1915's reenactment in the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995
  8. Cacevic v. City of Hazel Park

    226 F.3d 483 (6th Cir. 2000)   Cited 517 times
    Holding that a party's continuing "failure to respond" may be deemed a "confession" to the motion's merit
  9. Kochins v. Linden-Alimak, Inc.

    799 F.2d 1128 (6th Cir. 1986)   Cited 619 times
    Finding the exemption of asbestos-related injuries to satisfy rational basis review
  10. Mary M. v. City of Los Angeles

    54 Cal.3d 202 (Cal. 1991)   Cited 478 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the city could be liable under respondeat superior for a police officer who committed a sexual assault while on duty in California
  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 327,983 times   158 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
  12. Rule 24 - Proceeding in Forma Pauperis

    Fed. R. App. P. 24   Cited 19,132 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that "[t]he simple and expeditious motion procedure" set forth in Fed.R.App.P. 24, "rather than an appeal from . . . the certification of lack of good faith, [is] the proper procedure for calling in question the correctness of the action of the district court"
  13. Section 2338 - Responsibility of principal to third persons for negligence of agent

    Cal. Civ. Code § 2338   Cited 185 times
    Stating that "a principal is responsible to third persons for the negligence of his agent in the transaction of the business of the agency, including wrongful acts committed by such agent in and as a part of the transaction of such business, and for his willful omission to fulfill the obligations of the principal"
  14. Rule 8.1115 - Citation of opinions

    Cal. R. 8.1115   Cited 73,832 times

    (a) Unpublished opinion Except as provided in (b), an opinion of a California Court of Appeal or superior court appellate division that is not certified for publication or ordered published must not be cited or relied on by a court or a party in any other action. (b)Exceptions An unpublished opinion may be cited or relied on: (1) When the opinion is relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or (2) When the opinion is relevant to a criminal or disciplinary