4 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 50 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 Lionel Bordelon v. Chicago School Reform Board of Trustees.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Lionel Bordelon v. Chicago School Reform Board of Trustees Anchor | green | “not satisfied by evasive denials that do not fairly meet the substance of the material facts asserted.” | 17 |
| 2 | Eisenstadt v. Centel Corporation | green | “hearsay is inadmissible in summary judgment proceedings to the same extent that it is inadmissible in a trial.” | 15 |
| 3 | Lionel Bordelon v. Chicago School Reform Board of Trustees | green | “organizing the evidence, identifying undisputed facts, and demonstrating precisely how each side proposes to prove a disputed fact with admissible evidence.” | 14 |
| 4 | Vakharia v. Little Company of Mary Hospital & Health Care Centers | green | “rule 56 demands something more specific than the bald assertion of the general truth of a particular matter, rather it requires affidavits that cite specific concrete facts establishing the existence of the truth of the matter asserted.” | 4 |
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.