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.
3 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 40 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 ING Bank N v. v. M/V TEMARA.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ING Bank N v. v. M/V TEMARA Anchor | green | “construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and draw all reasonable inferences in its favor.” | 15 |
| 2 | McKinney v. City of Middletown | green | “the nonmoving party must come forward with evidence that would be sufficient to support a jury verdict in its favor.” | 13 |
| 3 | McKinney v. City of Middletown | green | “no genuine dispute of material fact exists when the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party.” | 12 |
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.