green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 111×
42.1 score
G Cite
cited 62× by 62 distinct cases, 1996–2012 ·
…rule 56 does not impose upon the district court a duty to sift through the record in search of evidence to support a party's opposition to summary judgment....
⚠ not in text
Topic ↗
cited 22× by 22 distinct cases, last quoted 2010 ·
…rule 56 does not impose upon the district court a duty to sift through the record in search of evidence to support a party's opposition to summary judgment ...
⚠ not in text
Topic ↗
cited 8× by 8 distinct cases, last quoted 2011 ·
…rule 56 does not impose upon the district court a duty to sift through the record in search of evidence to support a party's opposition to summary judgment ....
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1994 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1994
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Lewis v. Reyes
probable cause to arrest exists when an arrest is objectively reasonable based on the totality of the circumstances.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Korn v. Federal Insurance Company
rule 56 does not impose upon the district court a duty to sift through the record in search of evidence to support a party's opposition to summary judgment.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Trisler v. LifeShare Blood Centers
rule 56 does not impose upon the district court a duty to sift through the record in search of evidence to support a party's opposition to summary judgment.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Levin v. Barry Kaye & Associates, Inc.
rule 56 does not impose upon the district court a duty to sift through the record in search of evidence to support a party's opposition to summary judgment....
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Clements-Jeffrey v. City of Springfield, Ohio
rule 56 does not impose upon the district court a duty to sift through the record in search of evidence to support a party's opposition to summary judgment ....
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Miami Valley Fair Housing Center, Inc. v. Connor Group
rule 56 does not impose upon the district court a duty to sift through the record in search of evidence to support a party's opposition to summary judgment ....
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Burghy v. Dayton Recquet Club, Inc.
rule 56 does not impose upon the district court a duty to sift through the record in search of evidence 695 to support a party's opposition to summary judgment....
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Mullins v. GOODMAN DISTRIBUTION, INC.
rule 56 does not impose upon the district court a duty to sift through the record in search of evidence to support a party's opposition to summary judgment....
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc.
rule 56 does not impose upon the district court a duty to sift through the record in search of evidence to support a party's opposition to summary judgment ...
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Crown Packaging Technology, Inc. v. Ball Metal Beverage Container Corp.
rule 56 does not impose upon the district court a duty to sift through the record in search of evidence to support a party's opposition to summary judgment ....
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Overlook Mutual Homes, Inc. v. Spencer
rule 56 does not impose upon the district court a duty to sift through the record in search of evidence to support a party's opposition to summary judgment....
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Miller v. Javitch, Block & Rathbone
rule 56 does not impose upon the district court a duty to sift through the record in search of evidence to support a party's opposition to summary judgment ...
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Florists' Mutual Insurance v. Ludy Greenhouse Manufacturing Corp.
rule 56 does not impose upon the district court a duty to sift through the record in search of evidence to support a party's opposition to summary judgment....
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression v. Strickland
rule 56 does not impose upon the district court a duty to sift through the record in search of evidence to support a party's opposition to summary judgment-
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Parsley v. Hamilton Beach/Proctor Silex, Inc.
rule 56 does not impose upon the district court a duty to sift through the record in search of evidence to support a party's opposition to summary judgment ...
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Neely v. Good Samaritan Hospital
rule 56 does not impose upon the district court a duty to sift through the record in search of evidence to support a party's opposition to summary judgment ...
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Lang v. D&J HOMES
rule 56 does not impose upon the district court a duty to sift through the record in search of evidence to support a party's opposition to summary judgment ...
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Willis v. Hartzell Propeller Inc.
rule 56 does not impose upon the district court a duty to sift through the record in search of evidence to support a party's opposition to summary judgment ...
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Schaller v. National Alliance Insurance
rule 56 does not impose upon the district court a duty to sift through the record in search of evidence to support a party's opposition to summary judgment....
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Lower v. Electronic Data Systems Corp.
rule 56 does not impose upon the district court a duty to sift through the record in search of evidence to support a party's opposition to summary judgment ...
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Gies v. Flack
rule 56 does not impose upon the district court a duty to sift through the record in search of evidence to support a party's opposition to summary judgment ...
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Roemer v. City of Dayton
rule 56 does not impose upon the district court a duty to sift through the record in search' of evidence to support a party's opposition to summary judgment ...
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Webb v. Greene County Sheriff's Office
rule 56 does not impose upon the district court a duty to sift through the record in search of evidence to support a party's opposition to summary judgment ...
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Schreiber v. State Farm Insurance
rule 56 does not impose upon the district court a duty to sift through the record in search of evidence to support a party's opposition to summary judgment ...
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Offill v. Pennsylvania Life Insurance
rule 56 does not impose upon the district court a duty to sift through the record in search of evidence to support a party's opposition to summary judgment....
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Hollins v. Ohio Bell Telephone Co.
rule 56 does not impose upon the district court a duty to sift through the record in search of evidence to support a party's opposition to summary judgment....
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Kintner v. ALDI, INC.
rule 56 does not impose upon the district court a duty to sift through the record in search of evidence to support a party's opposition to summary judgment ...
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Responsible Environmental Solutions Alliance v. Waste Management, Inc.
rule 56 does not impose upon the district court a duty to sift through the record in search of evidence to support a party's opposition to summary judgment....
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Slyman v. City of Piqua
rule 56 does not impose upon the district court a duty to sift through the record in search of evidence to support a party's opposition to summary judgment....
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Engle v. Meister
rule 56 does not impose upon the district court a duty to sift through the record in search of evidence to support a party's opposition to summary judgment....
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Wells v. City of Dayton
rule 56 does not impose upon the district court a duty to sift through the record in search of evidence to support a party's opposition to summary judgment....
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Estate of Ridenour v. United States
rule 56 does not impose upon the district court a duty to sift through the record in search of evidence to support a party's opposition to summary judgment _
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Wylie v. Arnold Transportation Services, Inc.
rule 56 does not impose upon the district court a duty to sift through the record in search of evidence to support a party's opposition to summary judgment....
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Nilavar v. Mercy Health Systems-Western Ohio
rule 56 does not impose upon the district court a duty to sift through the record in search of evidence to support a party's opposition to summary judgment_
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
RSR Corp. v. Commercial Metals, Inc.
rule 56 does not impose upon the district court a duty to sift through the record in search of evidence to support a party's opposition to summary judgment....
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
CABANISS EX REL. CABANISS v. City of Riverside
rule 56 does not impose upon the district court a duty to sift through the record in search of evidence to support a party's opposition to sum 873 mary judgment_
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Cason v. International Truck and Engine Corp.
rule 56 does not impose upon the district court a duty to sift through the record in search of evidence to support a party's opposition to summary judgment....
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
May v. City of Springfield
rule 56 does not impose upon the district court a duty to sift through the record in search of evidence to support a party's opposition to summary judgment....
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Nilavar v. Mercy Health System-Western Ohio
rule 56 does not impose upon the district court a duty to sift through the record in search of evidence to support a party's opposition to summary judgment ...
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Jobete Music Co. v. Johnson Communications, Inc.
rule 56 does not impose upon the district court a duty to sift through the record in search of evidence to support a party's opposition to summary judgment....
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Gover v. Speedway Super America, LLC
rule 56 does not impose upon the district court a duty to sift through the record in search of evidence to support a party's opposition to summary judgment....
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Beatty v. United Parcel Service
rule 56 does not impose upon the district court a duty to sift through the record in search of evidence to support a party's opposition to summary judgment ...
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Southwest Ohio Regional Coun. of Carpenters and Joiners of America v. Frank W. Schaefer, Inc.
rule 56 does not impose upon the district court a duty to sift through the record in search of evidence to support a party's opposition to summary judgment....
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Benge v. General Motors Corp.
rule 56 does not impose upon the district court a duty to sift through the record in search of evidence to support a party's opposition to summary judgment....
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Johnson v. Delphi Corp.
riile 56 does not impose upon the district court a duty to sift6 through the record in search of evidence to support a party's opposition to summary judgment....
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Hale v. Vance
rule 56 does not impose upon the district court a duty to sift through the record in search of evidence to support a party's opposition to summary judgment ...
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Brock v. United Grinding Technologies, Inc.
rule 56 does not im 1094 pose upon the district court a duty to sift through the record in search of evidence to support a party's opposition to summary judgment....
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Waste Management, Inc. v. Rice Danis Industries Corp.
rule 56 does not impose upon the district court a duty to sift through the record in search of evidence to support a party's opposition to summary judgment....
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Greenwood v. Delphi Automotive Systems, Inc.
rule 56 does not impose upon the district court a duty to sift through the record in search of evidence to support a party's opposition to summary judgment....
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Johnson v. Wolgemuth
rule 56 does not impose upon the district court a duty to sift through the record in search of evidence to support a party's opposition to summary judgment ...
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Clark
v.
Haas Group, Inc.
v.
Haas Group, Inc.
No. 91-2076.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 5, 1992.
506 U.S. 832
C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.