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 21 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 Wadia Enterprises, Inc. v. Hirschfeld.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Wadia Enterprises, Inc. v. Hirschfeld Anchor | green | “even with respect to questions of motive, intent and good faith, the party opposing summary judgment must present a factual predicate for his argument in order to raise a genuine issue of fact.” | 14 |
| 2 | Schult v. Schult | green | “the summary judgment rule would be rendered sterile, however, if the mere incantation of intent or state of mind would operate as a talisman to defeat an otherwise valid motion.” | 4 |
| 3 | Reynolds v. Chrysler First Commercial Corp. | green | “summary judgment is ordinarily inappropriate where an individual's intent and state of mind are implicated. . . .” | 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.