green
Positive treatment
17.5 score
Treatment trajectory · 1988 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1988
2007
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 37 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Alakayak v. British Columbia Packers, Ltd.
(2×)
AD/SAT v. Associated Press, 181 F.3d 216, 233 (2d Cir.1999) (quoting Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 588 , 106 S.Ct. 1348 ); see also Ideal Dairy Farms, Inc. v. John Labatt, Ltd., 90 F.3d 737 , 748 (3d Cir.1996); Market Force Inc. v. Wauwatosa Realty Co., 906 F.2d 1167, 1171 (7th Cir.1990); Riverview Investments, Inc. v. Ottawa Community Improvement Corp., 899 F.2d 474, 483 (6th Cir. 1990); Dreiling v. Peugeot Motors of America, Inc., 850 F.2d 1373, 1379 (10th Cir.1988). 71 .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Thornton v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248-52 , 106 S.Ct. 2505 , 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); Dreiling v. Peugeot Motors of America, Inc., 850 F.2d 1373, 1377 (10th Cir.1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Antwerpen Dodge, Ltd. v. Herb Gordon Auto World, Inc.
Specifically, the concept of coercion requires, at the very least, a demand by a manufacturer that is accompanied by a threat of sanctions for noncompliance. 9 See Bob Willow Motors, Inc. v. General Motors Corp., 872 F.2d 788, 795-96 (7th Cir.1989); Dreiling v. Peugeot Motors of America, Inc., 850 F.2d 1373, 1378 (10th Cir.1988) (quoting Fray Chevrolet Sales, Inc. v. General Motors Corp., 536 F.2d 683 , 685 *311 (6th Cir.1976)); Empire Volkswagen, Inc. v. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp., 814 F.2d 90, 95-96 (2nd Cir.1987); R.D.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Yoder v. Honeywell, Inc.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Id. at 1377. 2 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Colonial Dodge, Inc. v. Chrysler Corp.
See Bob Willow Motors, Inc. v. General Motors Corp., 872 F.2d 788, 796 (7th Cir.1989) (citing Ed Houser Enters., 595 F.2d at 369 ); Dreiling v. Peugeot Motors of America, Inc., 850 F.2d 1373, 1379 (10th Cir.1988); Empire Volkswagen Inc. v. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp., 814 F.2d 90, 95-97 (2d Cir.1987); R.D.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
International Surplus Lines Insurance v. Wyoming Coal Refining Systems, Inc.
Dreiling v. Peugeot Motors of America, Inc., 850 F.2d 1373, 1376 (10th Cir.1988) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
ca10 1995
Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant Rule 56(f) relief on those claim-files. 17 Although the Supreme Court has held that, under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(f), summary judgment [should] be refused where the nonmoving party has not had the opportunity to discover information that is essential to his opposition, this protection arises only if the nonmoving party files an affidavit explaining why he or she cannot present facts to oppose the motion. 18 Dreiling v. Peugeot Motors of America, Inc., 850 F.2d 1373, 1376 (10th Cir.1988) (internal quotations and citations omitt…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cindy L. Hanson v. The City of Oklahoma City, a Municipal Corporation Mary Hill, in Her Official Capacity as Court Administrator
(2×)
First, Rule 56(f) was intended to allow a party to obtain "a continuance to permit additional discovery." Dreiling v. Peugeot Motors of America, Inc., 850 F.2d 1373, 1377 (10th Cir.1988) (emphasis added).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Pearson v. Ford Motor Co.
See also, General GMC, Inc. v. Volvo White Truck Corp., 918 F.2d 306, 308 (1st Cir.1990); Dreiling v. Peugeot Motors of America, Inc., 850 F.2d 1373, 1378 (10th Cir.1988); Empire Volkswagen, Inc. v. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp., 814 F.2d 90, 95 (2nd Cir.1987); Bob Maxfield, Inc. v. American Motors Corp., 637 F.2d 1033, 1038 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 860 , 102 S.Ct. 315 , 70 L.Ed.2d 158 (1981); Autohaus *1512 Brugger, Inc. v. Saab Motors, Inc., 567 F.2d 901, 911 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 436 U.S. 946 , 98 S.Ct. 2848 , 56 L.Ed.2d 787 (1978); Minson Plymouth, Inc. v. Chrysler Motors Corp.…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Roy L. Jackson v. Integra Inc., Doing Business as Residence Inn Marriott Corp., a Hotel and Restaurant Company Brock Suite Hotels, Inc.
Even if strict compliance with the rule is not required, and assuming the district court was aware of plaintiff's desire to conduct discovery via the statement in his response to the summary judgment motion to that effect, plaintiff "failed to demonstrate 'how additional time will enable him to rebut [defendants'] allegations of no genuine issue of fact,' as is also required of a Rule 56(f) affidavit." Universal Money Ctrs., 22 F.3d at 1536 (quoting Dreiling, 850 F.2d at 1377).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Public Service Company Of Colorado v. Continental Casualty Company
We are persuaded that here CNA did not make a proper showing for the granting of a continuance in compliance with Rule 56(f), "explaining why [the company] cannot present facts to oppose the motion." Dreiling v. Peugeot Motors of America, Inc., 850 F.2d 1373, 1376 (10th Cir.1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Public Service Co. of Colorado v. Continental Casualty Co.
We are persuaded that here CNA did not make a proper showing for the granting of a continuance in compliance with Rule 56(f), “explaining why [the company] cannot present facts to oppose the motion.” Dreiling v. Peugeot Motors of America, Inc., 850 F.2d 1373, 1376 (10th Cir.1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Stanfield v. Osborne Industries, Inc.
Also see Dreiling v. Peugeot Motors of America, Inc., 850 F.2d 1373, 1376 (10th Cir.1988) (The non-moving party must file "an affidavit explaining why he or she cannot present facts to oppose the motion.”). 2 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lee v. Life Insurance Co. of North America
See Seagood Trading Corp. v. Jerrico, Inc., 924 F.2d 1555, 1576 (11th Cir.1991); Volvo North America Corp. v. Men’s Int’l Professional Tennis Council, 857 F.2d 55 , 74 (2nd Cir. 1988); Dreiling v. Peugeot Motors of America, Inc., 850 F.2d 1373, 1382 (10th Cir.1988).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Morris v. Lomas & Nettleton Co.
In Dreiling v. Peugeot Motors of America, Inc., 850 F.2d 1373, 1382-83 (10th Cir.1988), the Tenth.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
City Of Chanute, Kansue v. Williams Natural Gas Company
Dreiling v. Peugeot Motors of America, Inc., 850 F.2d 1373, 1377 (10th Cir.1988).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
City of Chanute v. Williams Natural Gas Co.
Dreiling v. Peugeot Motors of America, Inc., 850 F.2d 1373, 1377 (10th Cir.1988).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Security Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Federal Savings & Loan Insurance
Dreiling v. Peugeot Motors of America, Inc., 850 F.2d 1373, 1377 (10th Cir.1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Beattie v. United States
Under Rule 56(f), a litigant may file an “affidavit explaining why he or she cannot present facts to oppose the motion.” Dreiling v. Peugeot Motors of America, Inc., 850 F.2d 1373, 1376 (10th Cir.1988).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Matthews v. United States
Dreiling v. Peugeot Motors of America, Inc., 850 F.2d 1373, 1376-77 (10th Cir.1988).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Vigil Ex Rel. Vigil v. Rhoades
Dreiling v. Peugeot Motors of America, Inc., 850 F.2d 1373, 1377 (10th Cir.1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Market Force Incorporated v. Wauwatosa Realty Company
Respondents in this case, in other words, must show that the inference of conspiracy is reasonable in light of the competing inference of independent action or collusive action that could not have harmed respondents. 25 475 U.S. at 588 , 106 S.Ct. at 1356 . 26 These two cases suggest a two-part inquiry to determine whether summary judgment is appropriate in an antitrust conspiracy case: 27 (1) is the plaintiff's evidence of conspiracy ambiguous, i.e., is it as consistent with the defendants' permissible independent interests as with an illegal conspiracy; and, if so, (2) is there any evidence …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Market Force Inc. v. Wauwatosa Realty Co.
Gibson v. Greater Park City Co., 818 F.2d 722, 724 (10th Cir.1987); see also Riverview Invs., Inc. v. Ottawa Community Improvement Corp., 899 F.2d 474 , 483 (6th Cir.1990); Dreiling v. Peugeot Motors of America, Inc., 850 F.2d 1373, 1380 (10th Cir.1988); P. Areeda & H.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Pizza Management, Inc. v. Pizza Hut, Inc.
This protection is afforded “only if the nonmoving party files an affidavit explaining why he or she cannot present facts to oppose the motion.” Dreiling v. Peugeot Motors of America, Inc., 850 F.2d 1373, 1376 (10th Cir.1988) (citing Weir, 773 F.2d at 1082 ).
cited
Cited "see"
Jenny v. L3 Technologies
See Dreiling v. Peugeot Motors of Am., Inc., 850 F.2d 1373 , 1377 (10th Cir. 1988).
cited
Cited "see"
Rocky Mountain Presstress v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance
See Dreiling, 850 F.2d at 1376–77.
cited
Cited "see"
Tuckness v. Runyon
See Dreiling v. Peugeot Motors of Am., Inc. , 850 F.2d 1373 , 1381 (10th Cir. 1988).
discussed
Cited "see"
Rozema v. the Marshfield Clinic
See Dreiling v. Peugeot Motors of America, *1377 Inc., 850 F.2d 1373, 1381 (10th Cir.1988) (concluding that first part of two-part Gibson inquiry not met where evidence reflected no expressed intent to suppress competition), cited favorably in Market Force Inc., 906 F.2d at 1171 .
cited
Cited "see"
Yoder v. Honeywell Inc.
See Dreiling v. Peugeot Motors of Am., Inc., 850 F.2d 1373 , 1376-77 (10th Cir.1988).
cited
Cited "see"
Committee for the First Amendment v. Campbell
See Dreiling v. Peugeot Motors of America, 850 F.2d 1373 , 1377 (10th Cir.1988); Weir v. Anaconda, 773 F.2d 1073 , 1083 (10th Cir.1985).
cited
Cited "see"
Committee For The First Amendment v. Campbell
See Dreiling v. Peugeot Motors of America, 850 F.2d 1373 , 1377 (10th Cir.1988); Weir v. Anaconda, 773 F.2d 1073 , 1083 (10th Cir.1985).
cited
Cited "see"
Searl v. Ogden Bd. of Realtors
Accord Dreiling v. Peugeot Motors of America, Inc., 850 F.2d 1373, 1380 (10th Cir.1988); Gibson v. Greater Park City Co., 818 F.2d 722, 724 (10th Cir.1987).
cited
Cited "see"
Carol Ann Culver v. The Town of Torrington, Wyoming and Officer Gary Webster
See Dreiling v. Peugeot Motors of America, Inc., 850 F.2d 1373 (10th Cir.1988). 4 .
discussed
Cited "see"
ca10 1990
See Dreiling v. Peugeot Motors of America, Inc., 850 F.2d 1373, 1381 (10th Cir.1988); Christofferson Dairy, 849 F.2d at 1172. 59 The jury found an unreasonable restraint of trade in the private health care financing market.
cited
Cited "see"
Reazin v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Kansas, Inc.
See Dreiling v. Peugeot Motors of America, Inc., 850 F.2d 1373, 1381 (10th Cir.1988); Christofferson Dairy, 849 F.2d at 1172.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Elfering v. Northwest Airlines, Inc.
See Shavrnoch v. Clark Oil & Refining Corp., 726 F.2d 291, 294 (6th Cir.1984); Porter v. City of Detroit, 639 F.Supp. 589, 592-93 (E.D.Mich.1986) (Pratt, C.J.); see also Dreiling v. Peugeot Motors of America, Inc., 850 F.2d 1373, 1376-77 (10th Cir.1988); Indians v. American Management & Amusement, Inc., 840 F.2d 1394, 1400 (9th Cir.1987); Falcone v. Columbia Pictures Industries, 805 F.2d 115 , 117 n. 2 (3d Cir.1986); Hebert v. Wickland, 744 F.2d 218, 222 (1st Cir.1984).
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Byron DeJesus BETANCUR-BUSTAMONTE, Defendant-Appellant
v.
Byron DeJesus BETANCUR-BUSTAMONTE, Defendant-Appellant
85-1172.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Jul 8, 1988.
Chambers, Fletcher, Nelson.
Published
The Order and Concurrence filed June 30, 1988 are hereby withdrawn.
The Opinion filed September 16, 1986 is hereby designated a Memorandum disposition.
The Petition for Rehearing is denied.