Boeing Company v. Shipman

5 Citing briefs

  1. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Mapp, III et al

    BRIEF

    Filed December 13, 2017

    Id. Although the court is to “draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party” and “may not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence,” Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150 (2000), “[a]mere scintilla of evidence is insufficient to present a question for the jury,” Boeing, 411 F.2d at 374. As such, a plaintiff’s claim that is supported by no more than a scintilla of evidence should not be submitted to the jury.

  2. Gonzales v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA

    MOTION for Summary Judgment

    Filed June 15, 2017

    “A mere scintilla of evidence is insufficient to present a question for the jury.” Boeing Co. v. Shipman, 411 F.2d 365, 374 (5th Cir. 1969) (en banc), overruled on other grounds, Gautreaux v. Scurlock Marine, Inc., 107 F.3d 331 (5th Cir. 1997) (en banc). Mere conclusory allegations are not competent summary judgment evidence and thus, are insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment.

  3. Wei v. Southwest Research Institute

    MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law

    Filed March 26, 2015

    A mere scintilla of evidence is insufficient to present a question for the jury. Hunter on Behalf of Hunter v. Knoll Rig & Equipment Mfg. Co., Ltd., 70 F.3d 803, 808 (5th Cir. 1995) (citing Boeing Co. v. Shipman, 411 F.2d 365 (5th Cir. 1969) (en banc)). A court should enter judgment as a matter of law when the facts and inferences point so strongly and overwhelmingly in the movant's favor that reasonable jurors could not reach a contrary verdict.

  4. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Exel, Inc.

    RESPONSE in Opposition re MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law or, Alternatively MOTION for New Trial

    Filed August 9, 2013

    41 Combs v. Plantation Patterns, Medowcraft, Inc., 106 F.3d 1519, 1526 (11th Cir. 1997) (citing Carter v. City of Miami, 870 F.3d 578, 581 (11th Cir. 1989)). 42 Williams v. City of Valdosta, 689 F.2d 964, 970 (11th Cir. 1982) (quoting Boeing v. Shipman, 411 F.2d 365, 374-375 (5th Cir. 1969)). 43 Reeves, 530 U.S. at 150 (citing Lytle v. Household Mfg., Inc., 494 U.S. 545, 554-555 (1990); Anderson, 477 U.S. at 254; Continental Ore Co. v. Union Carbide & Carbon Corp., 370 U.S. 690 (1962)); Howell v. Compass Group, 448 Fed. Appx. 30, 34 (11th Cir. 2011); Combs, 106 F.3d at 1538.

  5. Bamert et al v. Pulte Home Corporation et al.

    MOTION for leave to file to File Third Amended Complaint

    Filed September 13, 2012

    Liberal amendment standards facilitate the “Federal Rules’ overall goal of resolving disputes, insofar as possible, on the merits in a single judicial proceeding.” Boeing Co. v. Shipman, 411 F.2d 365, 374 (5th Cir. 1969) (emphasis added); McKinley v. Kaplan, 177 F.3d 1253, 1258 (11th Cir. 1999); Foman, 371 U.S. at 182. Thus, Rule 15’s policy of favoring amendments to pleadings should be applied with extreme liberality.”