green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
5.6 score
G Cite
cited 3× by 1 distinct case ·
“[Hearsay evidence, which is inadmissible at trial, cannot be considered on a motion for summary judgment.”
Treatment trajectory · 1993 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1993
2009
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 23 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Precision Components, Inc. v. C.W. Bearing USA, Inc.
hearsay evidence, which is inadmissible at trial, cannot be considered on a motion for summary judgment.
discussed
Cited "see"
Kevin Demers v. Walter Whittenburg
See Ford Motor Co. v. Summit Motor Prods., Inc., 930 F.2d 277 , 284 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 939 , 112 S.Ct. 373 , 116 L.Ed.2d 324 (1991); Young v. Biggers, 938 F.2d 565, 568 (5th Cir. 1991); Moore’s Federal Practice, supra, ¶ -18- 12.09[3].
cited
Cited "see"
Video Pipeline, Inc. v. Buena Vista Home Entertainment, Inc.
See Ford Motor Co. v. Summit Motor Prods., Inc., 930 F.2d 277 , 290 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 939 , 112 S.Ct. 373 , 116 L.Ed.2d 324 (1991) (citations omitted).
discussed
Cited "see"
Associated Utility Contractors of Maryland, Inc. v. Mayor of Baltimore
See Maryland Highways Contractors Assoc. v. Maryland, 933 F.2d 1246, 1253 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 939 , 112 S.Ct. 373 , 116 L.Ed.2d 325 (1991); Maryland Minority Contractor’s Assoc., Inc. v. Maryland Stadium Auth., 70 F.Supp.2d 580, 590 (D.Md.1998), aff 'd, 198 F.3d 237 (4th Cir.1999) (finding no organizational standing when some members would benefit from the statute and there was no “indication of how the decision to attack the ... statute was made, or of how much support for the suit exists within the membership....”); see also NAACP v. City of Annapolis, 133 F.Supp.2d 795,…
discussed
Cited "see"
Trans Union LLC v. Credit Research, Inc.
See Intermatic Inc. v. Toeppen, 947 F.Supp. 1227, 1285-36 (N.D.Ill. 1996). “[W]hen a buyer class is mixed, the standard of care to be exercised by the reasonably prudent purchaser will be equal to that of the least sophisticated consumer in the class.” Ford Motor Co. v. Summit Motor Products, Inc., 930 F.2d 277, 293 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 939 , 112 S.Ct. 373 , 116 L.Ed.2d 324 (1991).
cited
Cited "see"
BigStar Entertainment, Inc. v. Next Big Star, Inc.
See Ford Motor Co. v. Summit Motor Products, Inc., 930 F.2d 277, 293 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 939 , 112 S.Ct. 373 , 116 L.Ed.2d 324 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see"
Parents, Alumni, & Friends of Taylor School v. City of Norfolk
See Maryland Highways Contractors Ass’n, Inc. v. Maryland, 933 F.2d 1246, 1251 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 939 , 112 S.Ct. 373 , 116 L.Ed.2d 325 (1991) (finding that hearsay evidence, which is inadmissable at trial, cannot be considered on a motion for summary judgment); Garside v. Osco Drug, Inc., 895 F.2d 46, 50 (1st Cir.1990); Randle v. LaSalle Telecommunications, Inc., 876 F.2d 563, 570, n. 4 (7th Cir.1989).
discussed
Cited "see"
Acxiom Corp. v. Axiom, Inc.
See Ford Motor Co. v. Summit Motor Products, Inc ., 930 F.2d 277, 291-93 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 939 , 112 S.Ct. 373 , 116 L.Ed.2d 324 (1991); Scott Paper Co. v. Scott’s Liquid Gold, Inc., 589 F.2d 1225, 1228-29 (3d Cir.1978).
discussed
Cited "see"
Smith v. Ames Department Stores, Inc.
See Ford Motor Co. v. Summit Motor Products, Inc., 930 F.2d 277, 291 (3d Cir.1991) (citing Opticians Ass’n of America v. Independent Opticians of America, 920 F.2d 187, 192 (3d Cir.1990), cert. denied sub.nom., 502 U.S. 939 , 112 S.Ct. 373 , 116 L.Ed.2d 324 (1991)).
discussed
Cited "see"
Tolman v. Doe
See Maryland Highways Contractors Assn. v. Maryland, 933 F.2d 1246, 1251 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 939 , 112 S.Ct. 373 , 116 L.Ed.2d 325 (1991) (summary judgment affidavits cannot be based upon hearsay.)- However, even excluding the hearsay evidence, Dr. Tolman has shown by the overwhelming scientific literature that he is fit to practice medicine and to perform the procedures at issue despite his having AIDS.
discussed
Cited "see"
Roginski v. Time Warner Interactive, Inc.
See Ford Motor Co. v. Summit Motor Prods., Inc., 930 F.2d 277 , 290 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 939 , 112 S.Ct. 373 , 116 L.Ed.2d 324 (1991); Whelan Assocs. v. Jaslow Dental Lab., 797 F.2d 1222 , 1231 (3d Cir.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1031 , 107 S.Ct. 877 , 93 L.Ed.2d 831 (1987).
discussed
Cited "see"
A&H Sportswear Co. v. Victoria's Secret Stores, Inc.
See Ford Motor Co. v. Summit Motor Products, Inc., 930 F.2d 277, 292 (3d Cir.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 939 , 112 S.Ct. 373 , 116 L.Ed.2d 324 (1991); Opticians Ass’n v. Independent Opticians, 920 F.2d 187 (3d Cir.1990). 1.
discussed
Cited "see"
WarnerVision Entertainment Inc. v. Empire of Carolina Inc.
See Ford Motor Co. v. Summit Motor Prods., Inc., 930 F.2d 277 , 292 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 939 , 112 S.Ct. 373 , 116 L.Ed.2d 324 (1991); La Societe Anonyme des Parfums LeGalion v. Jean Patou, Inc., 495 F.2d 1265, 1271 (2d Cir.1974).
discussed
Cited "see"
Church v. General Motors Corp.
See Lumpkin v. Envirodyne Indus., Inc., 933 F.2d 449, 456 (7th Cir.) (setting forth Illinois law), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 939 , 112 S.Ct. 373 , 116 L.Ed.2d 324 (1991); LaSalle Nat’l Bank v. Service Merchandise Co., 827 F.2d 74, 78 (7th Cir.1987) (applying Illinois law).
discussed
Cited "see"
Eddie D. Church and Cherri Church v. General Motors Corporation, Defendant-Cross-Plaintiff-Appellant v. Power Press Sales Company, Inc., Defendant-Cross-Defendant-Appellee
See Lumpkin v. Envirodyne Indus., Inc., 933 F.2d 449, 456 (7th Cir.) (setting forth Illinois law), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 939 , 112 S.Ct. 373 , 116 L.Ed.2d 324 (1991); LaSalle Nat'l Bank v. Service Merchandise Co., 827 F.2d 74, 78 (7th Cir.1987) (applying Illinois law).
cited
Cited "see"
Schering Corporation v. Food and Drug Administration
See Ford Motor Co. v. Summit Motor Products, Inc., 930 F.2d 277, 284 (3d Cir.), cert. denied sub nom, Altran Corp. v. Ford Motor Co., 502 U.S. 939 , 112 S.Ct. 373 , 116 L.Ed.2d 324 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see"
Pacific Eastern Corp. v. Gulf Life Holding Co.
See Ford Motor Co. v. Summit Motor Prods., Inc., 930 F.2d 277 , 284 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 939 , 112 S.Ct. 373 , 116 L.Ed.2d 324 (1991); Young v. Biggers, 938 F.2d 565, 568 (5th Cir.1991); Moore’s Federal Practice, supra, ¶ 12.09[3].
cited
Cited "see"
Caterpillar, Inc. v. Nationwide Equipment
See Ford Motor Co. v. Summit Motor Products, Inc., 930 F.2d 277, 292 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 939 , 112 S.Ct. 373 , 116 L.Ed.2d 324 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see"
Microsoft Corp. v. CMOS Technologies, Inc.
See, Ford Motor Co. v. Summit Motor Products Inc., 930 F.2d 277, 291-93 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 939 , 112 S.Ct. 373 , 116 L.Ed.2d 324 (1991), and authorities cited therein; Scott Paper Co. v. Scott’s Liquid Gold, Inc., 589 F.2d 1225, 1228-29 (3d Cir.1978).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
HSBC Bank USA v. Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC
There is a split among the federal circuits as to whether there is a right to contribution and indemnity between fiduciaries under ERISA (see generally 1A Couch on Insurance 3d § 7:12 [collecting cases]; compare Chemung Canal Trust Co., 939 F2d at 15 and Lumpkin v Envirodyne Indus., Inc., 933 F2d 449, 464 [7th Cir 1991], cert denied 502 US 939 [1991] with Kim v Fujikawa, 871 F2d 1427, 1432-1433 [9th Cir 1989]; Site-Blauvelt Engrs., Inc. v First Union Corp., 153 F Supp 2d 707, 709-710 [ED Pa 2001] [Second Circuit recognizes contribution and indemnification claims under ERISA, while Ninth Circu…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Hummer Winblad Venture Partners
No. 94-1476, at 62) (original alteration omitted); see also Ford Motor Co. v. Summit Motor Prods., Inc., 930 F.2d 277 , 299 (3d Cir.) (noting that “ ‘[publication’ and the exclusive right protected by section 106(3) ... are for all practical purposes[ ] synonymous”), cer t. denied, 502 U.S. 939 , 112 S.Ct. 373 , 116 L.Ed.2d 324 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Napster, Inc. Copyright Litigation
No. 94-1476, at 62) (original alteration omitted); see also Ford Motor Co. v. Summit Motor Prods., Inc., 930 F.2d 277 , 299 (3d Cir.) (noting that "`[p]ublication' and the exclusive right protected by section 106(3) ... are for all practical purposes[] synonymous"), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 939 , 112 S.Ct. 373 , 116 L.Ed.2d 324 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Landfall Group Against Paid Transferability v. Landfall Club, Inc.
Ed. 2d 700, 719 (1982); see also Maryland Highway Contractors v. State of Maryland, 933 F.2d 1246, 1252 (4th Cir.) (association did not meet first prong of Hunt test for representational standing where there was .overwhelming evidence of lack of injury to each member of association), cert denied, 502 U.S. 939 , 116 L.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Altran Corp.
v.
Ford Motor Co.
v.
Ford Motor Co.
No. 91-273.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Nov 4, 1991.
Cited by 21 opinions | Published
Citer courts: W.D. North Carolina (1)
C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.