17 Cited authorities

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
477 U.S. 242 (1986) Cited 236,174 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 216,278 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"
Imbler v. Pachtman
424 U.S. 409 (1976) Cited 10,600 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding prosecutors absolutely immune from damages liability for having knowingly presented perjured witness testimony against criminal defendants, observing that the "veracity of witnesses in criminal cases frequently is subject to doubt before and after they testify . . . . If prosecutors were hampered in exercising their judgment as to the use of such witnesses by concern about resulting personal liability, [they often would refrain from calling such witnesses and hence] the triers of fact in criminal cases often would be denied relevant evidence"
Briscoe v. LaHue
460 U.S. 325 (1983) Cited 2,549 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that absolute immunity applies to claims of perjured testimony
Pierson v. Ray
386 U.S. 547 (1967) Cited 5,344 times
Holding that a good faith defense applies if the defendant held a subjective belief that was objectively reasonable that he was acting legally
Meyer v. Holley
537 U.S. 280 (2003) Cited 469 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that under traditional principles of vicarious liability, a corporation is the principal of its employees/agents, and thus corporate owners and officers are not liable for the unlawful acts of an employee simply on the basis that the owner or officer controlled (or had the right to control) the actions of that employee
Tenney v. Brandhove
341 U.S. 367 (1951) Cited 1,246 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[t]he claim of an unworthy purpose does not destroy the privilege"
Miller v. City of Philadelphia
174 F.3d 368 (3d Cir. 1999) Cited 387 times
Holding that liability exists only for "the most egregious official conduct" that is "so ill-conceived or malicious that it 'shocks the conscience.'"
Ferri v. Ackerman
444 U.S. 193 (1979) Cited 203 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that immunity doctrine inapplicable to court-appointed defense counsel in legal malpractice suit because "primary office performed by appointed counsel parallels the office of privately retained counsel."
Ernst v. Child and Youth Servs., Chester Cty
108 F.3d 486 (3d Cir. 1997) Cited 336 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that child welfare employees "are entitled to absolute immunity for their actions on behalf of the state in preparing for, initiating, and prosecuting dependency proceedings"
Rule 56 - Summary Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Cited 328,681 times 158 Legal Analyses
Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

WELLER v. RANSOM-GARNER et al

17 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 absolute immunity applies to claims of perjured testimony

Holding that a good faith defense applies if the defendant held a subjective belief that was objectively reasonable that he was acting legally

Holding that "[t]he claim of an unworthy purpose does not destroy the privilege"

Holding that liability exists only for "the most egregious official conduct" that is "so ill-conceived or malicious that it 'shocks the conscience.'"

Holding that immunity doctrine inapplicable to court-appointed defense counsel in legal malpractice suit because "primary office performed by appointed counsel parallels the office of privately retained counsel."

Holding that child welfare employees "are entitled to absolute immunity for their actions on behalf of the state in preparing for, initiating, and prosecuting dependency proceedings"

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