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.
7 canonical passages across 5 cases, quoted by 489 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 White v. City of Chicago.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | White v. City of Chicago Anchor | green | “the controlling question is whether a reasonable trier of fact could find in favor of the non-moving party on the evidence submitted in support of and opposition to the motion for summary judgment.” | 179 |
| 2 | White v. City of Chicago | green | “the benefit of reasonable inferences from the evidence, but not speculative inferences in its favor.” | 151 |
| 3 | Viamedia, Incorporation v. Comcast Corporation | green | “must refrain from making credibility determinations or weighing evidence.” | 102 |
| 4 | Kreg Therapeutics, Inc. v. Vitalgo, Inc. | green | “consistently upheld district judges' discretion to require strict compliance with local rule 56.1.” | 25 |
| 5 | Kreg Therapeutics, Inc. v. Vitalgo, Inc. | green | “each cross movant for summary judgment bears a respective burden to show no issue of material fact with respect to the claim.” | 18 |
| 6 | Kristen Zuppardi v. Wal-Mart Stores, Incorporated | green | “we have frequently said that it is within the district court's discretion to strictly enforce local rules regarding summary judgment by accepting the movant's version of facts as undisputed if the non-movant has failed to respond in the form required.” | 9 |
| 7 | Marcatante v. City of Chicago | green | “each cross movant for summary judgment bears a respective burden to show no issue of material fact with respect to the claim.” | 5 |
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.