green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
9.2 score
“he risk of injustice to the parties in allowing a summary judgment ruling to stand is usually slight. such rulings are subject to de novo review, with the reviewing court utilizing criteria identical to that used by the court below.”
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 34 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Rohrbach v. AT & T Nassau Metals Corp.
he risk of injustice to the parties in allowing a summary judgment ruling to stand is usually slight. such rulings are subject to de novo review, with the reviewing court utilizing criteria identical to that used by the court below.
cited
Cited "see"
Pruit v. Levy
See Van Skiver v. U.S., 952 F.2d 1241 , 43–44 (10th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 828 (1992); Barber ex rel.
cited
Cited "see"
Williams v. Foley
See Feathers v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 141 F.3d 264, 268 (6th Cir. 1998) (citing Van Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1243 (10th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 828 (1992)).
discussed
Cited "see"
Gutierrez v. State of New Mexico Corrections
See Van Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1244 (10th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 828 (1992)(explaining that a party may not invoke Rule 60(b) to revisit issues already addressed or “advanc[e] new arguments or supporting facts which were otherwise available for presentation when the original . . . motion was briefed”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Howard v. Farmers Insurance Company, Inc.
See Van Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1244 (10th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 828 (1992) (explaining that a party may not invoke Rule 60(b) to revisit issues already addressed or “advanc[e] new arguments or supporting facts which were otherwise available for presentation when the original . . . motion was briefed” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
cited
Cited "see"
WADDELL & REED FINANCIAL, INC. v. Torchmark Corp.
See id. (citing Van Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1243 (10th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 828 , 113 S.Ct. 89 , 121 L.Ed.2d 51 (1992)).
cited
Cited "see"
B-S Steel of Kansas, Inc. v. Texas Industries, Inc.
See Van Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241 (10th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 828 , 113 S.Ct. 89 , 121 L.Ed.2d 51 (1992). 2 .
cited
Cited "see"
Equitable Production Co. v. Canales-Treviño
See Huddy v. Fruehauf Corp., 953 F.2d 955, 958 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 828 , 113 S.Ct. 89 , 121 L.Ed.2d 52 (1992) (noting that “Texas has a strong commitment to protecting its residents”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Wei-Kang Zhou v. Pittsburg State University
See Van Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1243 (10th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 828 , 113 S.Ct. 89 , 121 L.Ed.2d 51 (1992). *1200 The Court affords a pro se plaintiff some leniency and must liberally construe the complaint.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Sims
See Van Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1243 (10th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 828 , 113 S.Ct. 89 , 121 L.Ed.2d 51 (1992).
cited
Cited "see"
Xiangyuan (Sue) Zhu v. Fisher, Cavanaugh, Smith & Lemon, P.A.
See Van Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1243 (10th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 828 , 113 S.Ct. 89 , 121 L.Ed.2d 51 (1992).
cited
Cited "see"
Estate of Flake Ex Rel. Flake v. Hoskins
See Van Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1243 (10th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 828 , 113 S.Ct. 89 , 121 L.Ed.2d 51 (1992). *668 Analysis I.
cited
Cited "see"
Matosantos Commercial Corp. v. Applebee's International, Inc.
See Van Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1243 (10th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 828 , 113 S.Ct. 89 , 121 L.Ed.2d 51 (1992).
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Baseball Bat Antitrust Litigation (MDL No. 1249)
(2×)
See id. (citing Van Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1243 (10th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 828 , 113 S.Ct. 89 , 121 L.Ed.2d 51 (1992)). 5 2.
cited
Cited "see"
Aetna U.S. Healthcare, Inc. v. Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft
See Van Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1243 (10th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 828 , 113 S.Ct. 89 , 121 L.Ed.2d 51 (1992).
cited
Cited "see"
Conrad J. Braun v. Robert D. Hannigan Robert T. Stephan
See Van Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1243 (10th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 828 , 113 S.Ct. 89 , 121 L.Ed.2d 51 (1992).
cited
Cited "see"
Braun v. Hannigan
See Van Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1243 (10th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 828 (1992).
discussed
Cited "see"
Rideout v. Scott
See Van Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1243 (10th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 828 , 113 S.Ct. 89 , 121 L.Ed.2d 51 (1992). 8 Mr. Rideout states that a series of circumstances during March 12-26, 1998 hindered his ability to respond to the magistrate judge's report.
discussed
Cited "see"
Rideout v. Scott
See Van Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1243 (10th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 828 (1992). -3- Mr. Rideout states that a series of circumstances during March 12-26, 1998 hindered his ability to respond to the magistrate judge’s report.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Brown
See Van Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1243 (10th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 828 , 113 S.Ct. 89 , 121 L.Ed.2d 51 (1992).
cited
Cited "see"
Sperry Marketing v. Newco, Inc.
See Van Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1243 (10th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 828 (1992).
discussed
Cited "see"
Sperry Marketing, Inc. v. Newco, Inc. Swing N Slide Corporation
See Van Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1243 (10th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 828 , 113 S.Ct. 89 , 121 L.Ed.2d 51 (1992). 12 A similar rule governs Sperry's appeal of the issue of equitable estoppel.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Tucker
See United States v. Haddock, 956 F.2d 1534, 1554 (10th Cir.) (“enhancement of a sentence for a later offense based on losses associated with crimes that were committed prior to the effective date of the Guidelines does not violate the Ex Post *1313 Facto clause”), reh’g granted on other grounds, 961 F.2d 933 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 828 , 113 S.Ct. 88 , 121 L.Ed.2d 50 (1992); United States v. Cusack, 901 F.2d 29, 32 (4th Cir.1990) (pre-Guidelines conduct used to calculate amount of drugs); United States v. Ykema, 887 F.2d 697, 700 (6th Cir.1989) (same), cert. denied, 493 U.S.…
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Johnson
See Van Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1243 (10th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 828 , 113 S.Ct. 89 , 121 L.Ed.2d 51 (1992).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Roberts
See United States v. Haddock, 956 F.2d 1534, 1542-43 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 828 , 113 S.Ct. 88 , 121 L.Ed.2d 50 (1992). 2 .
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Noll
See, U.S. v. Haddock, 961 F.2d 933 (10th Cir. 1992), cert. denied 506 U.S. 828 , 113 S. Ct. 88 , 121 L.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Dorula v. Flanders (In re Starlight Group, LLC)
See, e.g., Van Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1243-44 (10th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 828 , 113 S.Ct. 89 , 121 L.Ed.2d 51 (1992).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United Student Funds, Inc. v. Wylie (In Re Wylie)
See, e.g., Van Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1243-44 (10th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 828 , 113 S.Ct. 89 , 121 L.Ed.2d 51 (1992).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Plymale v. Donnelly
(2×)
See, e.g., Hatfield v. Board of County Comm'rs, 52 F.3d 858 , 861 (10th Cir. 1995) (The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not recognize a "motion to reconsider.") (citing Van Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1243 (10th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 828 (1992)); Lavespere v. Niagara Mach. & Tool Works, Inc., 910 F.2d 167 , 173 (5th Cir. 1990) (same) ( partially abrogated on other grounds, see Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069 , 1075-76 n.14 (5th Cir. 1994)(en banc)).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Feathers v. Chevron
See, e.g., Van Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1243 (10th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 828 , 113 S.Ct. 89 , 121 L.Ed.2d 51 (1992).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Feathers v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc.
See, e.g., Van Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1243 (10th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 828 , 113 S.Ct. 89 , 121 L.Ed.2d 51 (1992).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Willis
Hunter v. State, 916 F.2d 595, 598 (10th Cir. 1990) (en banc) (citations and quotations omitted), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 909 (1991); United States v. Williamson, 53 F.3d 1500, 1512-14 (10th Cir.) (simple variance generally allows upholding conviction because the proof at trial “corresponds to an offense clearly charged in the indictment,” but a fatal variance is prejudicial because a defendant cannot anticipate the evidence to be presented against him or be protected from double jeopardy), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 218 (1995); see also United States v. Haddock, 956 F.2d 1534, 1548-49 (10th …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Robert Lee Willis
Hunter v. State, 916 F.2d 595, 598 (10th Cir.1990) (en banc) (citations and quotations omitted), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 909 , 111 S.Ct. 1693 , 114 L.Ed.2d 87 (1991); United States v. Williamson, 53 F.3d 1500, 1512-14 (10th Cir.) (simple variance generally allows upholding conviction because the proof at trial “corresponds to an offense clearly charged in the indictment,” but a fatal variance is prejudicial because a defendant cannot anticipate the evidence to be presented against him or be protected from double jeopardy), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 218 , 133 L.Ed.2d 149 (1995); se…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Grantham v. Ohio Casualty Co.
See, e.g., Van Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1243 (10th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 828 , 113 S.Ct. 89 , 121 L.Ed.2d 51 (1992); Dalton v. First Interstate Bank, 863 F.2d 702, 704 (10th Cir.1988).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Santmyer
v.
Santmyer
v.
Santmyer
No. 91-2013.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 5, 1992.
Published
Citer courts: M.D. Pennsylvania (1)
C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.