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.
8 canonical passages across 5 cases, quoted by 95 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 Karen Fitzgerald v. M. Santoro.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Karen Fitzgerald v. M. Santoro Anchor | green | “however, the court's favor toward the nonmoving party does not extend to drawing inferences that are supported by only speculation or conjecture.” | 23 |
| 2 | Karen Fitzgerald v. M. Santoro | green | “to survive summary judgment, the non-moving party must establish some genuine issue for trial 'such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict' in her favor.” | 22 |
| 3 | Karen Fitzgerald v. M. Santoro | green | “however, my favor toward the nonmoving party does not extend to drawing inferences that are supported by only speculation or conjecture.” | 14 |
| 4 | Krysta Sutterfield v. City of Milwaukee | green | “qualified immunity shields a government official from suit when the official is performing a discretionary function and his conduct does not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” | 10 |
| 5 | Darrick Lawrence v. Kenosha County and Louis Vena | green | “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” | 9 |
| 6 | Gerald R. Wollin v. Bruce Gondert, Deputy Sheriff, Joseph Seidel, Deputy Sheriff and Jefferson County, Wisconsin | green | “section 1983 of title 42 authorizes a federal cause of action against any person who, acting under color of state law, deprives another of rights secured by federal law or the united states constitution.” | 7 |
| 7 | Lewis v. Wilkie | green | “(1) she engaged in an activity protected by the statute; (2) she suffered an adverse employment action; and (3) there is a causal link between the protected activity and the adverse action.” | 6 |
| 8 | Darrick Lawrence v. Kenosha County and Louis Vena | green | “that might affect the outcome of the suit under the applicable substantive law.” | 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.