green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
7.5 score
“it is generally recognized that a court has the power sua sponte to grant summary judgment to a non-movant when there has been a motion but no cross- motion.”
Treatment trajectory · 2002 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2002
2014
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 16 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Johnsonville Sausage LLC v. Klement Sausage Co Inc
it is generally recognized that a court has the power sua sponte to grant summary judgment to a non-movant when there has been a motion but no cross- motion.
discussed
Cited "see"
Young America's Foundation v. Berthelsen
See Veneklase v. City of Fargo, 248 F.3d 738, 745 (8th Cir. 2001) (“We reject the argument that because an inquiry might be necessary to determine whether a person is [engaged in speech to which a policy or law applies], the [policy or law] is therefore content-based.”), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 815 (2001).
discussed
Cited "see"
Com. v. Rivera, R.
See Commonwealth v. Witman, 750 A.2d 327, 337 (Pa. Super. 2000), appeal denied, 764 A.2d 1053 (Pa. 2000), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 815 (2001) (“[W]here police are conducting a valid search pursuant to a defendant’s [] consent, the initial investigation in its entirety is permissible. . . . [A]n investigation may require officials to remain on the scene for an extended period of time repeatedly entering or re-entering the building . . . [.]”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
cited
Cited "see"
Sackett v. ITC^ DELTACOM, INC.
See Romano v. U-Haul Int’l, 233 F.3d 655, 670 (1st Cir.2000), ce rt. denied, 534 U.S. 815 , 122 S.Ct. 41 , 151 L.Ed.2d 14 (2001); Zimmermann v. Assocs.
cited
Cited "see"
Lovitt v. Warden, Sussex I State Prison
See Lovitt v. Virginia, 534 U.S. 815 (2001).
discussed
Cited "see"
Wei Zhang v. American Gem Seafoods, Inc., Delaware Corporation McMi Food Company, a Texas Corporation Harry Lees, a Natural Person
See Romano v. U-Haul Int’l, Inc., 233 F.3d 655, 673 (1st Cir.2000), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 815 , 122 S.Ct. 41 , 151 L.Ed.2d 14 (2001) (finding that a plaintiffs termination on the basis of her sex was “more reprehensible than would appear in a case involving economic harms only”).
cited
Cited "see"
Cousin v. Sofono, Inc.
See Romano v. U-Haul Int'l, 233 F.3d 655 (1st Cir.2000), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 815 , 122 S.Ct. 41 , 151 L.Ed.2d 14 (2001).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Brown v. Smith
See also Romano v. U-Haul Int’l, 233 F.3d 655, 671 (1st Cir.2000), (applying same principle, in interpreting jury award of $15,000 in so-called nominal damages for civil rights violation as a compensatory damage award), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 815 , 122 S.Ct. 41 , 151 L.Ed.2d 14 (2001); Creem v. Cicero, 12 ConmApp. 607, 533 A.2d 234, 236 (1987) (“ ‘Generally, nominal damages are fixed without regard to the extent of harm done and are assessed in some trifling or trivial amount’ ”) (citation omitted); The Toledo Group, Inc. v. Benton Indus., Inc., 87 Ohio App.3d 798 , 623 N.E.2d 205, 2…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Juniper v. Com.
FACTS AND MATERIAL PROCEEDINGS BELOW Under well-settled principles of appellate review, we consider the evidence presented at trial in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the prevailing party in the trial court. 2 Burns v. Commonwealth, 261 Va. 307 , 313, 541 S.E.2d 872 , 877, cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1043 , 122 S.Ct. 621 , 151 L.Ed.2d 542 (2001); see also Lovitt v. Commonwealth, 260 Va. 497 , 502, 537 S.E.2d 866 , 870 (2000), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 815 , 122 S.Ct. 41 , 151 L.Ed.2d 14 (2001).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Commonwealth v. Tucker
See also, Commonwealth v. Witman, 750 A.2d 327, 334 (Pa.Super.2000), appeal denied, 564 Pa. 138 , 764 A.2d 1053 (2000), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 815 , 122 S.Ct. 42 , 151 L.Ed.2d 15 (2001) (“[T]o prove a legitimate expectation of privacy in a structure, a defendant must establish that he has either a posses-sory interest or a legitimate presence, or he must establish some factor from which a reasonable and justified expectation of privacy can be deduced.”) (citations omitted). ¶ 21 Tucker, however, made no attempt to establish his privacy interest in the area searched or effects seized from …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Frye v. Kansas City Missouri Police Department
The Supreme Court disagreed, explaining that "[i]it is common in the law to examine the content of a communication to determine the speaker's purpose" and that it had "never held, or suggested, that it is improper to look at the content of an oral or written statement in order to determine whether the rule of law applies to a course of conduct." Hill, 530 U.S. at 721 , 120 S.Ct. 2480 ; see also Veneklase v. City of Fargo, 248 F.3d 738, 745 (8th Cir.) ("We reject the argument that because an inquiry might be necessary to determine whether a person is picketing, the ordinance therefore is conten…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Frye v. Kansas City Missouri Police Department
(2×)
The Supreme Court disagreed, explaining that “[i]it is common in the law to examine the content of a communication to determine the speaker’s purpose” and that it had “never held, or suggested, that it is improper to look at the content of an oral or written statement in order to determine whether the rule of law applies to a course of conduct.” Hill, 530 U.S. at 721 ; see also Veneklase v. City of Fargo, 248 F.3d 738, 745 (8th Cir.) (“We reject the argument that because an inquiry might be necessary to determine whether a person is picketing, the ordinance therefore is content-bas…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Gibson v. Mayor of Wilmington
See, e.g., Kassbaum v. Steppenwolf Prods., Inc., 236 F.3d 487, 494 (9th Cir.2000) (quoting Cool Fuel Inc. v. Connett, 685 F.2d 309, 311 (9th Cir.1982)) ("When one party moves for summary judgment and at a hearing the record reveals no genuine dispute on a material fact, the overwhelming weight of authority supports the conclusion that ... the court may sua sponte grant summary judgment to the non-moving party.' ”), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 815 , 122 S.Ct. 41 (2001); Ramsey v. Coughlin, 94 F.3d 71, 73 (2d Cir.1996) (stating that it is generally established that " 'the trial court is not preclud…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Gibson v. Mayor And Council Of The City Of Wilmington
See, e.g., Kassbaum v. Steppenwolf Prods., Inc., 236 F.3d 487, 494 (9th Cir.2000) (quoting Cool Fuel Inc. v. Connett, 685 F.2d 309, 311 (9th Cir.1982)) ("When one party moves for summary judgment and at a hearing the record reveals no genuine dispute on a material fact, `the overwhelming weight of authority supports the conclusion that ... the court may sua sponte grant summary judgment to the non-moving party.'"), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 815 , 122 S.Ct. 41 (2001); Ramsey v. Coughlin, 94 F.3d 71, 73 (2d Cir.1996) (stating that it is generally established that "`the trial court is not precluded …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Medcalf v. Trustees of University of Pennsylvania
See, e.g., Romano v. U-Haul Int’l, 233 F.3d 655, 670 (1st Cir. 2000) cert. denied, 534 U.S. 815 , 122 S.Ct. 41 , 151 L.Ed.2d 14 (2001); Zimmermann v. Associates First Capital Corp., 251 F.3d 376 , 385 (2d Cir.2001); Passantino v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Prods., Inc., 212 F.3d 493 , 516 (9th Cir.2000); Deffenbaugh-Williams v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 188 F.3d 278, 286 (5th Cir. 1999).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Sierra Club v. United States Fish & Wildlife Service
“An agency’s decision not to prepare an EIS once that agency has prepared an EA is reviewed for abuse of discretion, and will be set aside only if it is ‘arbitrary and capricious.’ ” Id. at 1070 ; see also Ka Mákani, 295 F.3d at 959 (because NEPA does not contain a separate provision for judicial review, courts review an agency’s compliance with NEPA under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA)). *1129 “The arbitrary and capricious standard requires a court to ensure that an agency has taken the requisite ‘hard look’ at the environmental consequences of its proposed action,…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Steppenwolf Productions, Inc.
v.
Kassbaum, aka St. Nicholas
v.
Kassbaum, aka St. Nicholas
No. 00-1688.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 1, 2001.
Published
Citer courts: E.D. Wisconsin (1)
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.