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.
4 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 284 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 Jeffreys v. The City of New York.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Jeffreys v. The City of New York Anchor | green | “assessments of credibility and choices between conflicting versions of the events are matters for the jury, not for the court on summary judgment.” | 128 |
| 2 | Lee v. Coughlin | green | “a pro se party's 'bald assertion,' completely unsupported by evidence is not sufficient to overcome a motion for summary judgment.” | 81 |
| 3 | Mark Giannullo v. City of New York | green | “would derogate the truth-finding functions of the judicial process by substituting convenience for facts” | 67 |
| 4 | Govan v. Campbell | green | “does not excuse a pro se litigant from following the procedural formalities of summary judgment,” | 8 |
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.