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 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 Kathleen Strang v. United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Kathleen Strang v. United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency Anchor | green | “may deny a motion for summary judgment or order a continuance to permit discovery if the party opposing the motion adequately explains why, at that timepoint, it cannot present by affidavit facts needed to defeat the motion.” | 12 |
| 2 | Joseph P. Londrigan v. Federal Bureau of Investigation | green | “the purpose of rule 56(f) is to prevent 'railroading' the non-moving party through a premature motion for summary judgment before the non-moving party has had the opportunity to make full discovery.” | 8 |
| 3 | Cloverleaf Standardbred Owners Association, Inc. v. The National Bank of Washington, a Banking Corporation of the District of Columbia | green | “must state by affidavit the reasons why he is unable to present the necessary opposing material.” | 7 |
| 4 | Americable International, Inc. v. Department of Navy | green | “ordinarily 'is proper only after the plaintiff has been given adequate time for discovery.” | 6 |
| 5 | Americable International, Inc. v. Department of Navy | green | “summary judgment ordinarily 'is proper only after the plaintiff has been given adequate time for discovery.” | 6 |
| 6 | Byrd v. United States Environmental Protection Agency | green | “it is well settled that conclusory allegations unsupported by factual data will not create a triable issue of fact.” | 6 |
| 7 | Exxon Corp. v. Crosby-Mississippi Resources, Ltd | green | “where the result of a continuance to obtain further information would be wholly speculative” | 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.