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 6 cases, quoted by 418 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 Bill Clark Herbert Futch Austin Hurst Louis Sliker and William Barrineau v. Coats & Clark, Inc..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Bill Clark Herbert Futch Austin Hurst Louis Sliker and William Barrineau v. Coats & Clark, Inc. Anchor | green | “only when that burden has been met does the burden shift to the non-moving party to demonstrate that there is indeed a material issue of fact that precludes summary judgment.” | 114 |
| 2 | Karen Miranda v. B & B Cash Grocery Store, Inc., Karen Miranda v. B & B Cash Grocery Store, Inc. | green | “if reasonable minds could differ on the inferences arising from undisputed facts, then a court should deny summary judgment.” | 103 |
| 3 | Cornelious Howard v. Bp Oil Company, Inc. | green | “must make a sufficient showing to establish the existence of each essential element to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” | 66 |
| 4 | Jessie Walker v. Thomas E. Darby, Hugh L. Robinson, Jr., and Kenneth Day | green | “a mere 'scintilla' of evidence supporting the non-moving party's position will not suffice; there must be enough of a showing that the jury could reasonably find for that party.” | 54 |
| 5 | P. David Bailey v. Allgas, Inc. | green | “the mere existence of some evidence to support the non-moving party is not sufficient for denial of summary judgment; there must be 'sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party for a jury to return a verdict for that party.” | 52 |
| 6 | Cornelious Howard v. Bp Oil Company, Inc. | green | “the non-moving party must make a sufficient showing to establish the existence of each essential element to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” | 19 |
| 7 | The Hinesville Bank v. Pony Express Courier Corp. | green | “if reasonable minds might differ on the inferences arising from undisputed facts, then a court should deny summary judgment.” | 10 |
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.