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.
7 canonical passages across 7 cases, quoted by 149 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 Anthony McCormick v. City of Fort Lauderdale, Jonathan Walker, Officer.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Anthony McCormick v. City of Fort Lauderdale, Jonathan Walker, Officer Anchor | green | “the mere existence of some factual dispute will not defeat summary judgment unless that factual dispute is material to an issue affecting the outcome of the case.” | 63 |
| 2 | Timothy T. Holmes v. Officer Daniel Billings | green | “alabama has not waived its eleventh amendment immunity in 1983 cases, nor has congress abated it.” | 46 |
| 3 | Reese v. Herbert | green | “shoulder the initial burden of production in demonstrating the absence of any genuine issue of material fact.” | 13 |
| 4 | Thomas B. Fullman v. Charles Graddick | green | “mere verification of party's own conclusory allegations is not sufficient to oppose summary judgment.” | 11 |
| 5 | Norman E. Rowell v. BellSouth Corporation | green | “mere verification of party's own conclusory allegations is not sufficient to oppose summary judgment.” | 7 |
| 6 | Lofton v. Secretary of the Department of Children & Family Services | green | “only factual disputes that are material under the substantive law governing the case will preclude entry of summary judgment.” | 5 |
| 7 | Donovan George Davis v. Philip B. Williams | green | “must construe the facts and draw all inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and 'when conflicts arise between the facts evidenced by the parties, we credit the nonmoving party's version.” | 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.