§Why CasetextPricing

Starr Indemnity & Liability Company et al v. Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. et al

MOTION for Summary Judgment

31 Cited authorities

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.

    477 U.S. 242 (1986)   Cited 237,147 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 217,112 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. State Farm Fire Cas. Co. v. Tashire

    386 U.S. 523 (1967)   Cited 741 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that § 1335 “require only ‘minimal diversity,’ that is, diversity of citizenship between two or more claimants, without regard to the circumstance that other rival claimants may be co-citizens” (footnote omitted)

  4. Michelman v. Lincoln Nat'l Life Ins. Co.

    685 F.3d 887 (9th Cir. 2012)   Cited 136 times
    Holding that "in order to avail itself of the interpleader remedy, a stakeholder must have a good faith belief that there are or may be colorable competing claims to the stake" and that "good faith requires a real and reasonable fear of exposure to double liability or the vexation of conflicting claims"

  5. Rhoades v. Casey

    196 F.3d 592 (5th Cir. 1999)   Cited 178 times
    Holding that the statutory requirements for interpleader are met if there are adverse claimants to a single fund

  6. U.S. v. High Technology

    497 F.3d 637 (6th Cir. 2007)   Cited 141 times
    Holding that the existence of conflicting claims of entitlement to isotopes in the stakeholder's possession did not immunize the stakeholder against potential liability for damage sustained by those isotopes while in its custody

  7. Aaron v. Mahl

    550 F.3d 659 (7th Cir. 2008)   Cited 115 times
    Adopting the “normal course of business” exception

  8. Hudson Savings Bank v. Austin

    479 F.3d 102 (1st Cir. 2007)   Cited 93 times
    Holding that § 1444 "confers upon the federal government an absolute right to remove to federal court interpleader actions in which it is named as a defendant"

  9. New York Life Ins. Co. v. Connecticut Dev. Auth

    700 F.2d 91 (2d Cir. 1983)   Cited 150 times
    Holding certain parties to interpleader action were "properly designated as 'adverse claimants' who 'may claim' the proceeds of the [insurance] policies [at issue]," and that "[t]heir subsequent defaults did not make the interpleader action inappropriate but merely expedited its conclusion by obviating the normal second stage."

  10. Mendez v. Teachers Ins. and Annuity Ass'n

    982 F.2d 783 (2d Cir. 1992)   Cited 97 times
    Holding that delay in bringing action supported district court's denial of motion to discharge, not that bringing the interpleader action was improper

  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 330,074 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 1335 - Interpleader

    28 U.S.C. § 1335   Cited 2,223 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Granting original jurisdiction to the district courts in "any civil action of interpleader or in the nature of interpleader" "if two or more adverse claimants . . . are claiming or may claim to be entitled to such money or property" as shall have been pleaded into court

  13. Section 2361 - Process and procedure

    28 U.S.C. § 2361   Cited 719 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that the “district court . . . may discharge the plaintiff from further liability”