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.
8 canonical passages across 7 cases, quoted by 36 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Ugarriza v. Schmieder.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ugarriza v. Schmieder Anchor | green | “negligence cases by their very nature do not usually lend themselves to summary judgment, since often, even if all parties are in agreement as to the underlying facts, the very question of negligence is itself a question for jury determination” | 10 |
| 2 | Elusma v. Jackson | green | “defendants moving for summary judgment in a negligence action arising out of an automobile accident have the burden of establishing, prima facie, that they were not at fault in the happening of the accident” | 6 |
| 3 | Rosa v. Gordils | neutral | “on a motion for summary judgment, the moving party has the initial burden of coming forward with sufficient proof in admissible form to enable the court to determine that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law” | 5 |
| 4 | Choo v. Virginia Transp. Corp. | green | “there may be more than one proximate cause of an accident, and, generally, it is for the trier of fact to determine the issue of proximate cause” | 4 |
| 5 | Cleghorn v. Ocean Accident & Guarantee Corp. | green | “the rule now is that an answer containing defenses or denials may be stricken out as sham or frivolous when the motion papers on a motion for summary judgment make it appear that the answer falls within either category.” | 3 |
| 6 | Grossman v. Wright | green | “( see grossman v. wright , 268 ad2d 79 2d dept 2000 quoting licari v. elliott , 57 ny2d 230 ).” | 3 |
| 7 | Seizeme v. Levy | green | “the issue of a plaintiff's comparative negligence, however, may be decided in the context of a summary judgment motion where the plaintiff moves for summary judgment dismissing a defendant's affirmative defense alleging comparative negligence” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.