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 62 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 Lindsey v. Sears Roebuck and Co..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Lindsey v. Sears Roebuck and Co. Anchor | green | “where the non-movant bears the burden of proof at trial, the movant may merely point to an absence of evidence, thus shifting to the non-movant the burden of demonstrating by competent summary judgment proof that there is an issue of material fact warranting trial.” | 38 |
| 2 | Pamela McCarty v. Hillstone Restaurant Grou | green | “this court will not assume in the absence of any proof that the nonmoving party could or would prove the necessary facts, and will grant summary judgment in any case where critical evidence is so weak or tenuous on an essential fact that it could not support a judgment in favor …” | 24 |
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.