Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
15 Rhode Island opinions name it 2 courts 2007–2025 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Rhode Island courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of Catrettgreen2 sentences2011See Lavoie v. North East Knitting, Inc. , 918 A.2d 225 , 228 (R.I. 2007) (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317 , 322 , 106 S. Ct. 2548 , 2552 (1986) (construing the substantially similar federal rule)) (stating that summary judgment should enter "`against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case. . . .'"); see also Santana v. Rainbow Cleaners , 969 A.2d 653 , 657 (R.I. 2009); Holley v. Argonaut Holdings, Inc. , 968 A.2d 271 , 274 (R.I. 2009). *Page 18 Indeed, claims for fraudulent misrepresentation and fra 2011See Lavoie v. North East Knitting, Inc. , 918 A.2d 225 , 228 (R.I. 2007) (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317 , 322 , 106 S. Ct. 2548 , 2552 (1986) (construing the substantially similar federal rule)) (stating that summary judgment should enter "`against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case. . . .'"); see also Santana v. Rainbow Cleaners , 969 A.2d 653 , 657 (R.I. 2009); Holley v. Argonaut Holdings, Inc. , 968 A.2d 271 , 274 (R.I. 2009). *Page 18 Indeed, claims for fraudulent misrepresentation and fra | 3 | 13 |
Lavoie v. North East Knitting, Inc.green2 sentences2011See Lavoie v. North East Knitting, Inc. , 918 A.2d 225 , 228 (R.I. 2007) (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317 , 322 , 106 S. Ct. 2548 , 2552 (1986) (construing the substantially similar federal rule)) (stating that summary judgment should enter "`against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case. . . .'"); see also Santana v. Rainbow Cleaners , 969 A.2d 653 , 657 (R.I. 2009); Holley v. Argonaut Holdings, Inc. , 968 A.2d 271 , 274 (R.I. 2009). *Page 18 Indeed, claims for fraudulent misrepresentation and fra 2010"Therefore, summary judgment should enter `against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case * * *.'" Lavoie v. North East Knitting, Inc. , 918 A.2d 225 , 228 (R.I. 2007) (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317 , 322 (1986) (construing the substantially similar federal rule)). | 3 | 12 |
United States v. Textron Inc. & Subsidiariesgreen1 sentence2025The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has likewise explained that, under the substantially similar federal rule, in order for material to be “prepared in anticipation of litigation” it must be “done for litigation” specifically, and not “in the ordinary course of business or [be material] that would have been created in essentially similar form irrespective of the litigation.” United States v. Textron Inc. and Subsidiaries, 577 F.3d 21, 29-30 (1st Cir. 2009) (emphasis omitted) (quoting Maine v. United States -7- Department of Interior, 298 F.3d 60, 70 (1st Cir. 2002)). | 1 | 1 |
State Of Maine v. United States Department Of The Interiorgreen1 sentence2025The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has likewise explained that, under the substantially similar federal rule, in order for material to be “prepared in anticipation of litigation” it must be “done for litigation” specifically, and not “in the ordinary course of business or [be material] that would have been created in essentially similar form irrespective of the litigation.” United States v. Textron Inc. and Subsidiaries, 577 F.3d 21, 29-30 (1st Cir. 2009) (emphasis omitted) (quoting Maine v. United States -7- Department of Interior, 298 F.3d 60, 70 (1st Cir. 2002)). | 1 | 1 |
Santana v. Rainbow Cleaners, Inc.green1 sentence2011See Lavoie v. North East Knitting, Inc. , 918 A.2d 225 , 228 (R.I. 2007) (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317 , 322 , 106 S. Ct. 2548 , 2552 (1986) (construing the substantially similar federal rule)) (stating that summary judgment should enter "`against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case. . . .'"); see also Santana v. Rainbow Cleaners , 969 A.2d 653 , 657 (R.I. 2009); Holley v. Argonaut Holdings, Inc. , 968 A.2d 271 , 274 (R.I. 2009). *Page 18 Indeed, claims for fraudulent misrepresentation and fra | 1 | 1 |
Mills v. State Sales, Inc.green1 sentence2009Analysis To properly set forth “a claim for negligence, ‘a plaintiff must establish a legally cognizable duty owed by a defendant to a plaintiff, a breach of that duty, proximate causation between the conduct and the resulting injury, and the actual loss or damage.’ ” Willis v. Omar, 954 A.2d 126, 129 (R.I.2008) (quoting Mills v. State Sales, Inc., 824 A.2d 461, 467 (R.I.2003)). | 1 | 1 |
Willis v. Omargreen1 sentence2009Analysis To properly set forth “a claim for negligence, ‘a plaintiff must establish a legally cognizable duty owed by a defendant to a plaintiff, a breach of that duty, proximate causation between the conduct and the resulting injury, and the actual loss or damage.’ ” Willis v. Omar, 954 A.2d 126, 129 (R.I.2008) (quoting Mills v. State Sales, Inc., 824 A.2d 461, 467 (R.I.2003)). | 1 | 1 |
Cold Metal Process Co. v. United Engineering & Foundry Co.green2 sentences2007See also Cold Metal Process Co. v. United *208 Engineering & Foundry Co., 351 U.S. 445, 452 , 76 S.Ct. 904 , 100 L.Ed. 1311 (1956) (interpreting the substantially similar federal rule). 2007See also Cold Metal Process Co. v. United *208 Engineering & Foundry Co., 351 U.S. 445, 452 , 76 S.Ct. 904 , 100 L.Ed. 1311 (1956) (interpreting the substantially similar federal rule). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Rhode Island. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Doe v. Gelineau
green
2 sentences2009In a summary judgment proceeding, the moving party bears the initial burden of establishing that no genuine issue of material fact exists and can satisfy this burden by "submitting evidentiary materials, such as interrogatory answers, deposition testimony, admissions, or other specific documents, and/or pointing to the absence of such items in the evidence adduced by the parties." Doe v. Gelineau , 732 A.2d 43 , 48 (R.I. 1999). 2009In a summary judgment proceeding, the moving party bears the initial burden of establishing that no genuine issue of material fact exists and can satisfy this burden by "submitting evidentiary materials, such as interrogatory answers, deposition testimony, admissions, or other specific documents, and/or pointing to the absence of such items in the evidence adduced by the parties." Doe v. Gelineau , 732 A.2d 43 , 48 (R.I. 1999). | 2 | 2009–2009 |
Holley v. Argonaut Holdings, Inc.
green
1 sentence2011See Lavoie v. North East Knitting, Inc. , 918 A.2d 225 , 228 (R.I. 2007) (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317 , 322 , 106 S. Ct. 2548 , 2552 (1986) (construing the substantially similar federal rule)) (stating that summary judgment should enter "`against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case. . . .'"); see also Santana v. Rainbow Cleaners , 969 A.2d 653 , 657 (R.I. 2009); Holley v. Argonaut Holdings, Inc. , 968 A.2d 271 , 274 (R.I. 2009). *Page 18 Indeed, claims for fraudulent misrepresentation and fra | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Lennon v. MacGregor
green
1 sentence2010During a summary judgment proceeding, "the justice's only function is to determine whether there are any issues involving material facts." Id. (quoting Steinberg v. State , 427 A.2d 338 , 340 (R.I. 1981)). *Page 6 "Therefore, summary judgment should enter `against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case * * *.'" Lavoie v. North East Knitting, Inc. , 918 A.2d 225 , 228 (R.I. 2007) (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317 , 322 (1986) (construing the substantially similar federal rule)). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Steinberg v. State
green
1 sentence2010During a summary judgment proceeding, "the justice's only function is to determine whether there are any issues involving material facts." Id. (quoting Steinberg v. State , 427 A.2d 338 , 340 (R.I. 1981)). *Page 6 "Therefore, summary judgment should enter `against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case * * *.'" Lavoie v. North East Knitting, Inc. , 918 A.2d 225 , 228 (R.I. 2007) (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317 , 322 (1986) (construing the substantially similar federal rule)). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.