Harris v. Dep't of Agric., 506 U.S. 825 (1992). · Go Syfert
Search
Harris v. Dep't of Agric., 506 U.S. 825 (1992). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 4× by 1 distinct case · "The controlling date for purposes of the running of the respective statutes of limitations is when a purchaser of securities knew — or in the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have known — of the alleged wrongdoing."
cited 4× by 1 distinct case · “The controlling date for purposes of the running of the respective statutes of limitations is when a purchaser of securities knew — or in the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have known — of the alleged wrongdoing.”
177 citation events (75 in the last 25 years) across 24 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Ragona v. Louisiana Workforce Commission (lawd, 2021-09-27)
Treatment trajectory · 1994 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1994 2010 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 24 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Ragona v. Louisiana Workforce Commission
W.D. La. · 2021 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
mere conclusory allegations are not competent summary judgment evidence, and they are therefore insufficient to defeat or support a motion for summary judgment.
examined Cited as authority (quoted) Pirelli Armstrong Tire Corp. Retiree Medical Benefits Trust v. Dynegy, Inc.
S.D. Tex. · 2004 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
the controlling date for purposes of the running of the respective statutes of limitations is when a purchaser of securities knew - or in the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have known - of the alleged wrongdoing.
examined Cited as authority (quoted) In Re Dynegy, Inc. Securities Litigation
S.D. Tex. · 2004 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
the controlling date for purposes of the running of the respective statutes of limitations is when a purchaser of securities knew or in the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have known of the alleged wrongdoing.
cited Cited "see" Artt v. Exelixis US LLC
N.D. Tex. · 2022 · signal: see · confidence high
See Topalian v. Ehrman, 954 F.2d 1125, 1131 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 825 (1992).
discussed Cited "see" Kelly v. Patel
W.D. La. · 2021 · signal: see · confidence high
See Topalian v. Ehrman, 954 F.2d 1125 , 1131 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 825 (1992) (“Mere conclusory allegations are not competent summary judgment evidence, and they are therefore insufficient to defeat or support a motion for summary judgment.”) (citing Galindo v. Precision American Corp., 754 F.2d 1212, 1216 (5th Cir. 1985); United States v. An Article of Drug, 725 F.2d 976 , 984–85 (5th Cir. 1984)).
cited Cited "see" Hammond v. Pearle Vision, Inc.
E.D. Tex. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See Topalian v. Ehrman, 954 F.2d 1125, 1131 (5th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 825 , 113 S.Ct. 82 , 121 L.Ed.2d 46 (1992).
cited Cited "see" Melton v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit
N.D. Tex. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See Topalian v. Ehrman, 954 F.2d 1125, 1132 (5th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 825 , 113 S.Ct. 82 , 121 L.Ed.2d 46 (1992).
cited Cited "see" Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc. v. Federal Insurance
E.D. Tex. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See Topalian v. Ehrman, 954 F.2d 1125, 1131 (5th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 825 , 113 S.Ct. 82 , 121 L.Ed.2d 46 (1992).
discussed Cited "see" U.E. Texas One-Barrington, Ltd. v. General Star Indemnity Co.
W.D. Tex. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See Dailey v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Products Inc., 850 F.Supp. 549, 552 (N.D.Tex.1994) (quoting Topalian v. Ehrman, 954 F.2d 1125 , 1131 (5th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 825 , 113 S.Ct 82 , 121 L.Ed.2d 46 (1992)). 51 .
discussed Cited "see" GENERAL STAR INDEMNITY CO. v. Sherry Brooke Revocable Trust
W.D. Tex. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See Dailey v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Products Inc., 850 F.Supp. 549, 552 (N.D.Tex.1994) (quoting Topalian v. Ehrman, 954 F.2d 1125, 1131 (5th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 825 , 113 S.Ct. 82 , 121 L.Ed.2d 46 (1992)). 52 .
cited Cited "see" Freeman v. County of Bexar
5th Cir. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See Topalian v. Ehrman, 954 F.2d 1125, 1131 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 825 , 113 S.Ct. 82 , 121 L.Ed.2d 46 (1992).
cited Cited "see" Hahn v. City of Kenner
E.D. La. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See Topalian v. Ehrman, 954 F.2d 1125, 1131 (5th Cir.1992), rehg’ denied, 961 F.2d 215 (5th Cir.1992), cert. denied 506 U.S. 825 , 113 S.Ct. 82 , 121 L.Ed.2d 46 (1992).
cited Cited "see" Louisiana Land & Exploration Co. v. Pennzoil Exploration & Production Co.
E.D. La. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See Topalian v. Ehrman, 954 F.2d 1125, 1131 (5th Cir.1992), reh’g denied, 961 F.2d 215 (5th Cir.1992), cert. denied 506 U.S. 825 , 113 S.Ct. 82 , 121 L.Ed.2d 46 (1992).
discussed Cited "see" Payne v. Collins
E.D. Tex. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
To show that the evidence mandates summary judgment in its favor, the defendant either “affirmatively offerfs] evidence which undermines one of the essential elements of the plaintiffs case; or, ... simply demonstrate^] that the evidence in the record falls short of establishing an essential element of the plaintiffs case,” 5 id.; see Topalian v. Ehrman, 954 F.2d 1125, 1131 (5th Cir.) (party moving for summary judgment carries its burden “by informing the court of the basis for its motion, and by identifying portions of the record which highlight the absence of genuine factual issues”)…
discussed Cited "see" Lupo v. Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories
E.D. Tex. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
To show that the evidence mandates summary judgment in its favor, the defendant either “affirmatively offer[s] evidence which undermines one of the essential elements of the plaintiffs case; or, ... simply demonstrate^] that the evidence in the record falls short of establishing an essential element of the plaintiffs case,” 3 id. at 1264; see Topalian v. Ehrman, 954 F.2d 1125, 1131 (5th Cir.) (party, moving for summary judgment carries its burden “by informing the court of the basis for its motion, and by identifying portions of the record which highlight the absence of genuine fact tual…
cited Cited "see" Patel v. Northfield Insurance
N.D. Tex. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See Topalian v. Ehrman, 954 F.2d 1125 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 825 , 113 S.Ct. 82 , 121 L.Ed.2d 46 (1992).
cited Cited "see" C.R. England & Sons, Inc. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.
N.D. Tex. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See Topalicm v. Ehrman, 954 F.2d 1125 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 825 , 113 S.Ct. 82 , 121 L.Ed.2d 46 (1992).
cited Cited "see" Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. BJ Services Co.
N.D. Tex. · 1995 · signal: see · confidence high
See Topalian v. Ehrman, 954 F.2d 1125 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 825 , 113 S.Ct. 82 , 121 L.Ed.2d 46 (1992).
cited Cited "see" Chester v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.
N.D. Tex. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
See Topalian v. Ehrman, 954 F.2d 1125 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 825 , 113 S.Ct. 82 , 121 L.Ed.2d 46 (1992).
discussed Cited "see" DAVID A. HAMMOND v. COLEMAN COMPANY, The Coleman Company, Inc
unknown court · signal: see · confidence high
See Topalian v. 3 Ehrman, 954 F.2d 1125, 1131 (5th Cir.) (“[T]he nonmovant must come forward with evidence establishing each of the challenged elements of its case for which the nonmovant will bear the burden of proof at trial.”), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 825 (1992).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Triche v. CF Industries, Inc.
5th Cir. · 2003 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Topalian v. Ehrman, 954 F.2d 1125, 1131 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 825 , 113 S.Ct. 82 , 121 L.Ed.2d 46 (1992) (conclusory allegations not sufficient to defeat claim for summary judgment).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Veeck v. Southern Building Code Congress International Inc.
E.D. Tex. · 1999 · signal: see also · confidence low
SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD The current standards for reviewing a motion for summary judgment were established in the Supreme Court’s trilogy of Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 , 106 S.Ct. 2548 , 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986), Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 , 106 S.Ct. 2505 , 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) and Matsushita Electrical Industrial Co. Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 , 106 S.Ct. 1348 , 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986); see also Topalian v. Ehrman, 954 F.2d 1125 (5th Cir.1992), cert denied, 506 U.S. 825 , 113 S.Ct. 82 , 121 L.Ed.2d 46 (1992).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Hamilton v. Pilgrim's Pride Employee Group Health Plan
E.D. Tex. · 1998 · signal: see also · confidence low
SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD The current standards for reviewing a motion for summary judgment were established in the Supreme Court’s trilogy of Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 , 106 S.Ct. 2548 , 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986), Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 , 106 S.Ct. 2505 , 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) and Matsushita Electrical Industrial Co. Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 , 106 S.Ct. 1348 , 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986); see also Topalian v. Ehrman, 954 F.2d 1125 (5th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 825 , 113 S.Ct. 82 , 121 L.Ed.2d 46 (1992).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Robert B. Grenier v. Vermont Log Buildings, Inc., Third-Party v. Dap, Inc. And Champion International Corp., Third-Party
1st Cir. · 1996 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Ass'n v. Allenhy, 958 F.2d 941, 946-47 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 825 , 113 S.Ct. 80 , 121 L.Ed.2d 44 (1992) (state statute requiring point-of-sale warnings not preempted), with Taylor AG Industries v. Pure-Gro, 54 F.3d 555, 561 (9th Cir.1995) (failure to warn claims based on inadequacy of point-of-sale signs preempted). 4 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Harris
v.
Department of Agriculture
No. 91-1955.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 5, 1992.
506 U.S. 825
Published
3 passages pin-cited by 3 cases
Pinpoint authority: bottom 92%
Citer courts: S.D. Texas (2) · W.D. Louisiana (1)

C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.