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 18 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 Samuel C. Balderman, M.D. v. United States Veterans Administration and Veterans Administration Medical Center.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Samuel C. Balderman, M.D. v. United States Veterans Administration and Veterans Administration Medical Center Anchor | green | “the court is required to draw all factual inferences in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought.” | 9 |
| 2 | Kevin Richardson v. Donald Selsky, Clement Capuano, William Fenton, Bernard Lonczak | green | “summary judgment may be granted if, upon reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant, the court determines that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” | 9 |
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.