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.
6 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 91 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 Clark v. Haas Group, Inc..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Clark v. Haas Group, Inc. Anchor | green | “rule 56 does not impose upon the district court a duty to sift through the record in search of evidence to support a party's opposition to summary judgment ...” | 22 |
| 2 | Skotak v. Tenneco Resins, Inc. | green | “rule 56 does not impose upon the district court a duty to sift through the record in search of evidence to support a party's opposition to summary judgment ...” | 22 |
| 3 | Fleming v. Grand Jury Foreperson, Special Grand Jury 89-2 | green | “rule 56 does not impose upon the district court a duty to sift through the record in search of evidence to support a party's opposition to summary judgment ...” | 22 |
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.