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.
2 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 54 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 Gabrielle M. v. Park Forest-Chicago Heights, Illinois School District 163.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gabrielle M. v. Park Forest-Chicago Heights, Illinois School District 163 Anchor | green | “it is well established that in order to withstand summary judgment, the non-movant must allege specific facts creating a genuine issue for trial and may not rely on vague, conclusory allegations” | 32 |
| 2 | Sommerfield v. City of Chicago | green | “summary judgment is not a time to be coy: conclusory statements not grounded in specific facts are not enough” | 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.