6 canonical passages across 5 cases, quoted by 31 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 Raby v. Livingston.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Raby v. Livingston Anchor | green | “may not simply rely on vague assertions that additional discovery will produce needed, but unspecified, facts.” | 13 |
| 2 | C.B. Trucking, Inc. v. Waste Management, Inc. | green | “set forth a plausible basis for believing that specified facts, susceptible of collection within a reasonable time frame, probably exist and indicate how the emergent facts, if adduced, will influence the outcome of the pending summary judgment motion.” | 5 |
| 3 | Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 97,301 Securities and Exchange Commission v. Spence & Green Chemical Company and Andrew Spence, Sr. | green | “rather, a request to stay summary judgment under rule 56(d) must 'set forth a plausible basis for believing that specified facts, susceptible of collection within a reasonable time frame, probably exist and indicate how the emergent facts, if adduced, will influence the outcome …” | 4 |
| 4 | C.B. Trucking, Inc. v. Waste Management, Inc. | green | “rather, a request to stay summary judgment under rule 56(d) must 'set forth a plausible basis for believing that specified facts, susceptible of collection within a reasonable time frame, probably exist and indicate how the emergent facts, if adduced, will influence the outcome …” | 3 |
| 5 | Enplanar, Inc. v. Marsh | green | “a continuance for additional discovery if the nonmovant: (i) requested extended discovery prior to the court's ruling on summary judgment; (ii) placed the court on notice that further discovery pertaining to the summary judgment motion was being sought; and (iii) demonstrated to…” | 3 |
| 6 | Thomas Mckay v. Novartis Pharmaceutical Cor | green | “not pursued discovery diligently enough to warrant relief under rule 56(d).” | 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.