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.
9 canonical passages across 7 cases, quoted by 357 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 Samuel Mesnick v. General Electric Company.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Samuel Mesnick v. General Electric Company Anchor | green | “to pierce the pleadings and to assess the proof in order to see whether there is a genuine need for trial.” | 149 |
| 2 | Jose MEDINA-MUNOZ, Etc., Et Al., Plaintiffs, Appellants, v. R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, Defendant, Appellee | green | “one that must be decided at trial because the evidence, viewed in the light most flattering to the nonmovant, would permit a rational factfinder to resolve the issue in favor of either party.” | 85 |
| 3 | Samuel Mesnick v. General Electric Company | green | “pierce the pleadings and to assess the proof in order to see whether there is a genuine need for trial.” | 64 |
| 4 | Cherkaoui v. City of Quincy | green | “facts are material when they have the 'potential to affect the outcome of the suit under the applicable law.” | 14 |
| 5 | Dixon-Tribou v. McDonough | green | “must consider the record and the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmovant,” | 14 |
| 6 | Bellone v. Southwick-Tolland Regional School District | green | “summary judgment is appropriate 'if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” | 12 |
| 7 | Gibson Foundation, Inc. v. Norris | green | “there is no factual determination which a 'rational factfinder' could make as to the 'existence or nonexistence' of a fact that 'has the potential to change the outcome of the suit.” | 12 |
| 8 | Rivera Rodriguez v. Hospital San Cristobal | green | “focus' of the inquiry into the admissibility of expert testimony under rule 702 'must be solely on principles and methodology, not on the conclusions that they generate.” | 4 |
| 9 | Rivera Rodriguez v. Hospital San Cristobal | green | “daubert made clear that to be admissible under rule 702, an expert's opinion 'must be supported by appropriate validation' and rest on 'more than subjective belief or unsupported speculation.” | 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.