green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 5×
14.5 score
G Cite
cited 8× by 4 distinct cases ·
…must raise 'significant probative evidence' that would be sufficient for a jury to find for that party.
Topic ↗
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996
2011
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 32 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited "but see"
Rowe v. Grapevine Corp.
The federal courts 16 are in virtual accord that a suit’s dismissal “based on the running of the statute of limitations will, absent a clear directive to the contrary, be deemed a dismissal on the merits that will bar the filing of a subsequent suit on the ground of res judicata.” Semtek Int’l Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 128 Md.App. 39 , 736 A.2d 1104, 1116 (1999) (citing authority from nine federal circuit courts of appeal for position that dismissal on statute of limitations grounds is judgment on merits); but see Reinke v. Boden, 45 F.3d 166 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 817…
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Pearson v. Watson
(2×)
must raise 'significant probative evidence' that would be sufficient for a jury to find for that party.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Turner v. Genesse & Wyoming, Inc. (G&W Railroad)
(2×)
must raise 'significant probative evidence' that would be sufficient for a jury to find for that party.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Turner v. Ala. & Gulf Coast Ry. LLC
(2×)
must raise 'significant probative evidence' that would be sufficient for a jury to find for that party.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Brown v. Utilities Board, City of Daphne, Ala
(2×)
must raise 'significant probative evidence' that would be sufficient for a jury to find for that party.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Citizens Bank of Newburg v. Kansas Bankers Sur. Co.
... grounds alleged in the complaint but not relied upon in summary judgment are deemed abandoned.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Cole v. Delio
Ct. 73, 133 L.Ed.2d 33 (1995); Zurak v. Regan, 550 F.2d 86, 93 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 433 U.S. 914 , 97 S.Ct. 2988 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1101 (1977).
discussed
Cited "see"
Bear Stops v. United States
(2×)
See Drew v. United States, 46 F.3d 823, 826-27 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 817 , 116 S.Ct. 72 , 133 L.Ed.2d 33 (1995). [¶ 51]Similarly, the fact that appellate counsel did not file a certiorari petition with the United States Supreme Court did not make appellate counsel’s representation inadequate or actionable.
cited
Cited "see"
ca8 1999
See United States v. Gurley, 43 F.3d 1188, 1197 (8th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 817 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see"
Harmon Industries v. Carol Browner
(2×)
See United States v. Gurley, 43 F.3d 1188, 1197 (8th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 817 , 116 S.Ct. 73 , 133 L.Ed.2d 33 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see"
Jiricko v. Moser & Marsalek, P.C.
(2×)
See United States v. Gurley, 43 F.3d 1188, 1199 (8th Cir.1994) (“Whether the present action is the ‘same cause of action’ as the prior action depends on whether it ‘arises out of the same nucleus of operative facts as the prior claim.’ ”) (quoting Lane v. Peterson, 899 F.2d 737, 742 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 823 , 111 S.Ct. 74 , 112 L.Ed.2d 48 (1990)), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 817 , 116 S.Ct. 73 , 133 L.Ed.2d 33 (1995).
cited
Cited "see"
Ted Scheufler v. General Host Corporation
See Sheets v. Salt Lake County, 45 F.3d 1383, 1387 (10th Cir.), cert. denied 516 U.S. 817 , 116 S.Ct. 74 , 133 L.Ed.2d 34 (1995).
cited
Cited "see"
State Ex Rel. Smith v. Kermit Lumber & Pressure Treating Co.
See United States v. Gurley, 43 F.3d 1188, 1191 (8th Cir.1994), cert. denied,-U.S.-, 116 S.Ct. 73 , 133 L.Ed.2d 33 (1995). 25 .
discussed
Cited "see"
MacDraw, Inc. v. CIT Group Equipment Financing, Inc.
(2×)
In re Snyder, 472 U.S. 634, 643 , 105 S.Ct. 2874 , 86 L.Ed.2d 504 (1985); accord In re Jacobs, 44 F.3d 84, 87 (2d Cir.1994) (“A district court’s authority to discipline attorneys admitted to appear before it is a well-recognized inherent power of the court.”), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 817 , 116 S.Ct. 73 , 133 L.Ed.2d 33 (1995); People ex rel.
discussed
Cited "see"
Harold L. Fife v. Freeman Bosley
See United States v. Gurley, 43 F.3d 1188, 1198 (8th Cir.1994) (collateral estoppel inappropriate because “a substance that is included in [the Clean Water Act’s] definition of oil is not necessarily exempted from CERCLA’s definition of petroleum”), cer t. denied , — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 73 , 133 L.Ed.2d 33 (1995); Kelley v. TYK Refractories Co., 860 F.2d 1188, 1194-95 (3d Cir.1988) (unfavorable unemployment compensation decision does not collaterally estop federal civil rights action); Plaine v. McCabe, 797 F.2d 713, 721-22 (9th Cir.1986) (agency decision that merger was fair does not …
cited
Cited "see"
Bufman Organization v. Federal Deposit Insurance
See Resolution Trust Corp. v. Dunmar Corp., 43 F.3d 587, 597 (11th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom., Jones v. Resolution Trust Corp., — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 74 , 133 L.Ed.2d 33 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see"
Bufman Organization v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
See Resolution Trust Corp. v. Dunmar Corp., 43 F.3d 587, 597 (11th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom., Jones v. Resolution Trust Corp., --- U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct. 74 , 133 L.Ed.2d 33 (1995). 30 In determining whether a particular claim is related to a regular banking transaction, we look not only to the type of claim, but to the allegations in the complaint and to the theory of recovery.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Garcia-Monagas v. Garcia-Ramirez de Arellano
(2×)
See, e.g., United States v. Gurley, 43 F.3d 1188, 1197 (8th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 817 , 116 S.Ct. 73 , 133 L.Ed.2d 33 (1995) (holding as a matter of *54 federal preclusion law that officers and directors may be in privity with corporation if named in their corporate capacity).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hawthorne v. SEARS TERMITE & PEST CONTROL, INC.
(2×)
See, e.g., Resolution Trust Corp. v. Dunmar Corp., 43 F.3d 587, 599 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 817 , 116 S.Ct. 74 , 133 L.Ed.2d 33 (1995); Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Ala. v. Weitz, 913 F.2d 1544 , 1550 (11th Cir.1990), reh’g denied, 921 F.2d 283 (11th Cir.1990); Chase v. Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A., 140 F.Supp.2d 1280, 1286 (M.D.Ala.2001).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
McClain v. Metabolife International, Inc.
(2×)
However, “Rule 56 ... does not impose upon the district court a duty to survey the entire record in search of evidence to support a non-movant’s opposition.” Jones v. Sheehan, Young & Culp, P.C., 82 F.3d 1334, 1338 (5th Cir.1996); see also Resolution Trust Corp. v. Dunmar Corp., 43 F.3d 587, 599 (11th Cir.1995) (“There is no burden on the district court to distill every potential argument that could be made based upon the materials before it on summary judgment.”), cert. denied sub. nom., 516 U.S. 817 , 116 S.Ct. 74 , 133 L.Ed.2d 33 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
OCI Mortgage Corp. v. Marchese
(2×)
Some courts and commentators have recognized that the common-law holding in.D’Oench, Duhme & Co. and the provisions of 12 U.S.C. § 1823 (e) embody the same principle, and hence, require a similar, if not identical, analytical approach; see, e.g., Resolution Trust Corp. v. Dunmar Corp., 43 F.3d 587, 593 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 817 , 116 S. Ct. 74 , 133 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Gomez v. United States
(2×)
See Blankenship, 159 F.3d at 338-39 ; see also, Drew v. United States, 46 F.3d 823, 826-27 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 817 , 116 S.Ct. 72 , 133 L.Ed.2d 33 (1995).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Unigard Insurance v. Leven
See also United States v. Gurley, 43 F.3d 1188 (8th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 817 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Bevill v. UAB Walker College
(2×)
See also Resolution Trust Corp. v. Dunmar Corp., 43 F.3d 587, 599 (11th Cir.) (“There is no burden upon the district court to distill every potential argument that could be made based upon the materials before it on summary judgment.”), cer t. denied, 516 U.S. 817 , 116 S.Ct. 74 , 133 L.Ed.2d 33 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Lewis v. Young Men's Christian Ass'n
See also Resolution Trust Corp. v. Dunmar Corp., 43 F.3d 587, 599 (11th Cir.) (en banc) (“There is no burden upon the district court to distill every potential argument that could be made based upon the materials before it on summary judgment.”), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 817 , 116 S.Ct. 74 , 138 L.Ed.2d 33 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Nolin v. Town of Springville
(2×)
See also Resolution Trust Corp. v. Dunmar Corp., 43 F.3d 587, 599 (11th Cir.) (“There is no burden upon the district court to distill every potential argument that could be made based upon the materials before it on summary judgment.”), cer t. denied, 516 U.S. 817 , 116 S.Ct. 74 , 133 L.Ed.2d 33 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Blanke v. Alexander
Co., 846 F.2d 1247 , 1251 (10th Cir.1988); Campbell, 975 F.2d at 1577 . 61 Moreover, "federal law governs the decision whether a remittitur should be granted in a diversity case.... 'Under federal law, whether the trial court properly refused to grant remittitur or a new trial on the ground of an excessive damage award is tested by an abuse of discretion standard.' " K-B Trucking Co. v. Riss International Corp., 763 F.2d 1148, 1162 (10th Cir.1985), (quoting Garrick v. City and County of Denver, 652 F.2d 969, 971 (10th Cir.1981)); see also Sheets v. Salt Lake County, 45 F.3d 1383, 1390 (10th Ci…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Blanke v. Alexander
Co., 846 F.2d 1247 , 1251 (10th Cir.1988); Campbell, 975 F.2d at 1577 . *1236 Moreover, "federal law governs the decision whether a remittitur should be granted in a diversity case.... `Under federal law, whether the trial court properly refused to grant remittitur or a new trial on the ground of an excessive damage award is tested by an abuse of discretion standard.'" K-B Trucking Co. v. Riss International Corp., 763 F.2d 1148, 1162 (10th Cir.1985), (quoting Garrick v. City and County of Denver, 652 F.2d 969, 971 (10th Cir.1981)); see also Sheets v. Salt Lake County, 45 F.3d 1383, 1390 (10th …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Sikora v. AFD Industries, Inc.
Vaughn v. Speaker, 126 Ill.2d 150 , 127 Ill.Dec. 803, 808 , 533 N.E.2d 885, 890 (1988); see also Reinke v. Boden, 45 F.3d 166, 169 (7th Cir.1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 817 , 116 S.Ct. 74 , 133 L.Ed.2d 34 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Geiger v. Tokheim
Dist., 70 F.3d 512 , 514 (8th Cir.1995) (citing Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 94 , 101 S.Ct. 411, 414 , 66 L.Ed.2d 308 (1980), in turn, citing Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. 147, 153 , 99 S.Ct. 970, 973 , 59 L.Ed.2d 210 (1979)); see also United States v. Gurley, 43 F.3d 1188, 1198 (8th Cir.1994) (quoting Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. 147, 153 , 99 S.Ct. 970, 973 , 59 L.Ed.2d 210 (1979)), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 73 , 133 L.Ed.2d 33 (1995).
Jacobs
v.
Grievance Committee for the Eastern District of New York
v.
Grievance Committee for the Eastern District of New York
No. 94-2012.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 2, 1995.
Published
C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.