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 3 cases, quoted by 22 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 Sutter v. Wakefern Food Corp..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Sutter v. Wakefern Food Corp. Anchor | green | “generally, successive motions for summary judgment should not be entertained, absent a showing of newly discovered evidence or other sufficient cause” | 11 |
| 2 | Capuano v. Platzner International Group, Ltd. | green | “successive motions for summary judgment should not be made based upon facts or arguments which could have been submitted on the original motion for summary judgment” | 6 |
| 3 | Vinar v. Litman | green | “rather, the evidence that was not submitted in support of the previous summary judgment motion must be used to establish facts that were not available to the party at the time it made its initial motion for summary judgment and which could not have been established through alter…” | 5 |
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.