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.
2 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 32 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 Clyde Ammons v. Aramark Uniform Services, Inc..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Clyde Ammons v. Aramark Uniform Services, Inc. Anchor | green | “a district court is entitled to expect strict compliance with rule 56.1.” | 28 |
| 2 | De v. City of Chicago | green | “it is improper, and a violation of local rule 56.1, for the nonmoving party to add additional facts to his local rule 56.1(b)(3)(b) response; the nonmoving party's additional facts belong in a separate statement.” | 4 |
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.