green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 8×
7.4 score
G Cite
cited 6× by 6 distinct cases, last quoted 2000 ·
…the core purpose of the summary judgment procedure is to 'pierce the boilerplate of the pleadings' and evaluate the proof to determine whether a trial will serve any useful purpose.
⚠ not in text
Topic ↗
Treatment trajectory · 1993 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1993
2009
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 17 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Ball v. Wal-Mart, Inc.
the core purpose of the summary judgment procedure is to 'pierce the boilerplate of the pleadings' and evaluate the proof to determine whether a trial will serve any useful purpose.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Burtman Iron Works, Inc. v. Con-Way Transportation Services, Inc.
the core purpose of the summary judgment procedure is to 'pierce the boilerplate of the pleadings' and evaluate the proof to determine whether a trial will serve any useful purpose.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Zeneca Ltd. v. Pharmachemie B.V.
the core purpose of the summary judgment procedure is to 'pierce the boilerplate of the pleadings' and evaluate the proof to determine whether a trial will serve any useful purpose.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Santos v. Shields Health Group
the core purpose of the summary judgment procedure is to 'pierce the boilerplate of the pleadings' and evaluate the proof to determine whether a trial will serve any useful purpose.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Pegasus Management Co., Inc. v. Lyssa, Inc.
the core purpose of the summary judgment procedure is to 'pierce the boilerplate of the pleadings' and evaluate the proof to determine whether a trial will serve any useful purpose.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Feinman v. Lombardo
the core purpose of the summary judgment procedure is to 'pierce the boilerplate of the pleadings' and evaluate the proof to determine whether a trial will serve any useful purpose.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
State Department of Transportation v. Providence & Worcester Railroad
(2×)
the question is not whether there is an ambiguity in the metaphysical sense, but whether the language has only one reasonable meaning when construed, not in a hypertechnical fashion, but in an ordinary, common sense manner
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Harleysville Mutual Insurance v. Sussex County
(2×)
new castle vii
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Reebok International Ltd. v. Sebelen
Its role is “to pierce the boilerplate of the pleadings and assay the parties’ proof in order to determine whether trial is actually required.” Wynne v. Tufts University School of Medicine, 976 F.2d 791, 794 (1st Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1030 , 113 *722 5.Ct. 1845, 123 L.Ed.2d 470 (1993).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
MacCleery v. T.S.S. Retail Corp.
Sch. of Medicine, 976 F.2d 791, 794 (1st Cir.1992), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 113 S.Ct.. 1845, 123 L.Ed.2d 470 (1993)).
cited
Cited "see"
Soares Da Costa Contractor, Inc. v. Langer Electric Co.
See Deutsch v. Burlington Northern Ry.[Railroad] Corp.[Co.], 983 F.2d 741 (7th Cir.1992), cert. denied, [ 507 U.S. 1030 ,] 113 S.Ct. 1845 [, 123 L.Ed.2d 470 ] (1993).
examined
Cited "see"
American States Insurance Co. v. Kiger
(4×)
See New Castle County v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 933 F.2d 1162, 1192-1199 (3d Cir.1991), after remand, 970 F.2d 1267, 1269 (1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1030 , 113 S.Ct. 1846 , 123 L.Ed.2d 470 (1993); Just v. Land Reclamation, Ltd., 155 Wis.2d 737 , 456 N.W.2d 570 (Wis.1990); Claussen v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 259 Ga. 333 , 380 S.E.2d 686 (Ga.1989).
discussed
Cited "see"
St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company v. Warwick Dyeing Corporation
(2×)
See New Castle County v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 933 F.2d 1162, 1182 (3d Cir.1991) (finding that the burden of proof is on the insurer under Delaware law), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 1846 , 123 L.Ed.2d 470 (1993).
discussed
Cited "see"
St. Paul v. Warwick
See New ___ ___ Castle County v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co, 933 F.2d 1162 , _____________ ________________________________ 1182 (3d Cir. 1991) (finding that the burden of proof is on the insurer under Delaware law), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 1846 ____ ______ -10- (1993).
discussed
Cited "see"
Harrow Products, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance
(2×)
See New Castle County v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 933 F.2d 1162, 1181-82 (3rd Cir.1991), (Delaware law), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 1846 , 123 L.Ed.2d 470 (1993); Gould, Inc. v. Continental Casualty Co., 822 F.Supp. 1172, 1181-82 (E.D.Pa.1993) (Illinois law); Colonial Tanning Corp. v. Home Indemnity Co., 780 F.Supp. 906, 919 (N.D.N.Y.1991) (New York law); U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty v. Morrison Grain Co., 734 F.Supp. 437, 442-43 (D.Kan.1990) (Kansas law).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Fremaint v. Ford Motor Co.
See also, Wynne v. Tufts University School of Medicine, 976 F.2d 791, 796 (1st Cir.1992) cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1030 , 113 S.Ct. 1845 , 123 L.Ed.2d 470 (1993); Sheinkopf v. Stone, 927 F.2d 1259, 1271 (1st Cir.1991); Rosado Serrano v. E.I.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Vicom, Inc. v. Harbridge Merchant Services, Inc., as Successor in Interest to Peach Tree Bancard Corporation, Judy Elliot, James Elliot
(2×)
A Rule 59(e) motion may be granted only if "there has been a mistake of law or fact or new evidence has been discovered that is material and could not have been discovered previously." Figgie Int'l, Inc. v. Miller, 966 F.2d 1178, 1179 (7th Cir.1992); see also Deutsch v. Burlington Northern R.R., 983 F.2d 741, 744 (7th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 1845 , 123 L.Ed.2d 470 (1993).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Daniel A. WILLIS
v.
The CELOTEX CORPORATION
v.
The CELOTEX CORPORATION
No. 92-1358.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Apr 19, 1993.
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Denied.