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 17 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 George Ford Mary A. Ford v. General Motors Corporation.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | George Ford Mary A. Ford v. General Motors Corporation Anchor | green | “demonstrating that the nonmoving party lacks evidence to support an essential element of its case.” | 10 |
| 2 | Harold Wasek v. Arrow Energy Services, Inc. | green | “we have repeatedly cautioned against inferring causation based on temporal proximity alone.” | 4 |
| 3 | Tuttle v. Baptist Health Med. Grp., Inc. | green | “where some time elapses between when the employer learns of a protected activity and the subsequent adverse employment action, the employee must couple temporal proximity with other evidence of retaliatory conduct to establish causality.” | 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.