Cases from cite.case.law:

WASTE MANAGEMENT OF LOUISIANA, L. L. C. v. RIVER BIRCH, INCORPORATED J. Jr. R. L. L. C., 920 F.3d 958 (5th Cir. 2019)

. . . Moore et al. , 11 Moore's Federal Practice § 56.22[2][c] (3d ed. 2018). . . .

IN RE WASHABAUGH, P. v., 572 B.R. 141 (Bankr. M.D.N.C. 2017)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.22 (3d ed. 2015). . . .

NEW MEXICO CONSOLIDATED CONSTRUCTION, LLC, a v. CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA FE, LLC, a v. Fe, Fe J. M. A. F. S. Fe, Fe Fe D. Fe, 97 F. Supp. 3d 1287 (D.N.M. 2015)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.22[1], at 56-1325 to 56-1326 (1985 ed.)). . . .

IN RE CARRSOW- FRANKLIN,, 524 B.R. 33 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2015)

. . . Prac.3d § 56.22[2] (2014). . . .

AVOLA, v. LOUISIANA- PACIFIC CORPORATION,, 991 F. Supp. 2d 381 (E.D.N.Y. 2013)

. . . summary judgment (first and second modifications in original) (quoting 6 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.22 . . .

In KING, C. v., 463 B.R. 555 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2011)

. . . . § 56.22 provides that sales of property under legal process shall take place on any day of the week . . . Stat. § 56.22 (“All sales of property under legal process shall take place at the time, date, and place . . .

GOSE, v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COUNTY OF McKINLEY, 778 F. Supp. 2d 1191 (D.N.M. 2011)

. . . Wicker, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.22[1], at 56-1325 to 56-1326 (1985 ed.)). . . .

MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL PROPERTIES, INC. v. SALVINO, INC., 542 F.3d 290 (2d Cir. 2008)

. . . Coughlin, 789 F.2d 986, 989 (2d Cir.1986) (quoting 6 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.22[1], at 56-1312 . . .

In KEITHLEY INSTRUMENTS, INC. DERIVATIVE LITIGATION To, 599 F. Supp. 2d 875 (N.D. Ohio 2008)

. . . The stock price proceeded to rise 56.22% by the end of the quarter, less than two months later. . . .

THE LIGHTHOUSE INSTITUTE FOR EVANGELISM, INC. d b a v. THE CITY OF LONG BRANCH, P. C. S. M. A- Z, 406 F. Supp. 2d 507 (D.N.J. 2005)

. . . Wicker Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.22[1] (2d ed.1985). . . .

JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,, 224 F.R.D. 261 (D.D.C. 2004)

. . . Wicker, Federal Practice ¶ 56.22(1) (1980)). . . .

BANNUM, INC. v. UNITED STATES,, 59 Fed. Cl. 241 (Fed. Cl. 2003)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 56.22[2], at 2824-25 (2d ed.1966)). See also Broomall Indus. Inc. v. . . .

GRAY, C. v. TUNICA COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI a, 279 F. Supp. 2d 789 (N.D. Miss. 2003)

. . . notwithstanding the apparent absence of a factual issue. 6-Pt. 2, Moore, Federal Practice (2d Ed.), ¶56.22 . . .

DiGIORGIO CORPORATION, v. MENDEZ AND CO. INC. v. A. d b a, 230 F. Supp. 2d 552 (D.N.J. 2002)

. . . Wicker Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.22[1] (2d ed.1985). . . .

L. RALSTON, v. SMITH NEPHEW RICHARDS, INC., 275 F.3d 965 (10th Cir. 2001)

. . . Wicker, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.22[1], at 56-1325 to 56-1326 (1985 ed.)). . . .

In CHAPMAN III, III, v. III, v. C. III, v. E., 265 B.R. 796 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2001)

. . . Pfeil, 757 F.2d at 860 (quoting 6 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 56.22[1] at 1321-22 (1982)). . . .

L. FARRIS, v. COLEMAN COMPANY, INC., 121 F. Supp. 2d 1014 (N.D. Miss. 2000)

. . . notwithstanding the apparent absence of a factual issue. 6-Pt. 2, Moore, Federal Practice (2d Ed.), ¶ 56.22 . . .

NISSAN FIRE MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD v. FRITZ COMPANIES, INC., 210 F.3d 1099 (9th Cir. 2000)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.22[2] (2d ed.1966)). . . .

SYSTEMS MATERIAL HANDLING COMPANY, a v. L. GREENSTEIN, L. v. a, 84 F. Supp. 2d 1203 (D. Kan. 2000)

. . . Wicker, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.22[1], at 56-1325 to 56-1326 (1985 ed.). . . .

CHILDS, Jr. a v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION,, 73 F. Supp. 2d 669 (N.D. Miss. 1999)

. . . notwithstanding the apparent absence of a factual issue. 6-Pt. 2, Moore, Federal Practice (2d Ed.), ¶56.22 . . .

MROZ, A. v. CITY OF TONAWANDA,, 999 F. Supp. 436 (W.D.N.Y. 1998)

. . . Coughlin, 789 F.2d 986, 989 (2d Cir.1986) (quoting 6 Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 56.22[1], at 56-1312 . . .

GARDNER, v. HOWARD W., 109 F.3d 427 (8th Cir. 1997)

. . . Systems, Inc., 52 F.3d 734, 738 (8th Cir.1995); Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e); 6 Moore’s Federal Practice, Part 2, ¶ 56.22 . . .

LAROUCHE, Jr. v. WEBSTER,, 175 F.R.D. 452 (S.D.N.Y. 1996)

. . . .), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 854, 111 S.Ct. 150, 112 L.Ed.2d 116 (1990); 6 Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.22 . . .

In PENNSYLVANIA FOOTWEAR CORPORATION, PENNSYLVANIA FOOTWEAR CORPORATION, P. v. MIDLANTIC BANK, N. A., 199 B.R. 534 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1996)

. . . MOORE, FEDERAL PRACTICE, ¶ 56.22[2], at 56-767 (2d ed. 1988). . . .

In JOSHUA HILL, INC. JOSHUA HILL, INC. A. v. WHITEMARSH TOWNSHIP AUTHORITY J. K. M. K. R. S., 199 B.R. 298 (E.D. Pa. 1996)

. . . MOORE, FEDERAL PRACTICE, ¶ 56.22[2], at 56-767 (2d ed. 1988). . . .

CAMPBELL, v. OSMOND,, 917 F. Supp. 1574 (M.D. Fla. 1996)

. . . (citing 6 Moore's Federal Practice § 56.22(1)), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 935, 89 S.Ct. 295, 21 L.Ed.2d . . .

BUILDING INDUSTRY FUND v. LOCAL UNION NO. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL- CIO, 992 F. Supp. 162 (E.D.N.Y. 1996)

. . . Moore Federal Practice, ¶ 56.22[1] at 56-752 to 56-755 (2d ed.1988)). . . .

STEWART STEVENSON SERVICES, INC. v. M V CHRIS WAY, 890 F. Supp. 552 (N.D. Miss. 1995)

. . . notwithstanding the apparent absence of a factual issue. 6, Pt. 2, Moore, Federal Practice (2d Ed.), ¶ 56.22 . . .

LAS VEGAS NIGHTLIFE, INC. d b a G. d b a d b a s G L d b a s d b a d b a s d b a v. CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA,, 38 F.3d 1100 (9th Cir. 1994)

. . . F.R.CÍV.P. 56(e); 6 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.22[1] (2d ed.) at 743-46. . . .

C. SATCHER, v. HONDA MOTOR CO. LTD., 855 F. Supp. 886 (S.D. Miss. 1994)

. . . court’s examination of the evidence presented at the time of the motion. 6 Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.22 . . .

W. MURPHY, v. TIMBERLANE REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT,, 22 F.3d 1186 (1st Cir. 1994)

. . . Moore et ah, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶¶ 56.22-56.24 (1993). . . .

In BILL S DOLLAR STORES, INC. HAYWIN TEXTILE PRODUCTS, INC. v. BILL S DOLLAR STORES, INC., 164 B.R. 471 (Bankr. D. Del. 1994)

. . . See 6 Moore's Federal Practice, ¶ 56.22[1] and [2] (2d Ed.). . . .

In HUNT S HEALTH CARE, INC., 161 B.R. 971 (Bankr. N.D. Ind. 1993)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice ¶56.22[2] at 2824-825 (2nd ed.1966)). . . .

ATKINS, v. BOARD OF SCHOOL COMMISSIONERS OF CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, A. M., 830 F. Supp. 1169 (S.D. Ind. 1993)

. . . denied, 475 U.S. 1107, 106 S.Ct. 1513, 89 L.Ed.2d 912 (1986), citing, 6 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 56.22 . . .

BARNEY, v. H. GILLESPIE, Jr., 813 F. Supp. 1537 (D. Utah 1993)

. . . Wicker, Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 56.22[1]. . . .

MAINE PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY, v. FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION,, 964 F.2d 5 (D.C. Cir. 1992)

. . . The mileage from Buxton switchyard to the Maine Yankee 345 KV switchyard which will be involved is 56.22 . . .

LOPEZ, v. CORPORACI N AZUCARERA PUERTO RICO,, 938 F.2d 1510 (1st Cir. 1991)

. . . establish absence of genuine issue, summary judgment must be denied even though unopposed); 6 Moore’s 11 56.22 . . .

H. SAND CO. INC. v. AIRTEMP CORPORATION,, 934 F.2d 450 (2d Cir. 1991)

. . . Coughlin, 789 F.2d 986, 989 (2d Cir.1986), quoting 6 Moore’s Federal Practice Para. 56.22[1], at 56-1312 . . .

VON ZUCKERSTEIN, Dr. v. ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY,, 760 F. Supp. 1310 (N.D. Ill. 1991)

. . . Wicker Moore’s Federal Practice 11 56.22[1], at 56-764 (2d ed. 1985). . . .

REESE, v. ANDERSON,, 926 F.2d 494 (5th Cir. 1991)

. . . Wicker, Moore’s Federal Practice para. 56.22[2] at 56-768 — 56-769 (2d ed. 1988). . . .

B. SHEINKOPF, v. K. P. STONE III,, 927 F.2d 1259 (1st Cir. 1991)

. . . Wicker, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.22[1] at 56-741 (suggesting that cases where a verified pleading . . . Wicker, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶[56.22[1] at 56-748 to 56-749 ("[I]f [an] affidavit contains relevant . . .

LUND INDUSTRIES, INC. v. WESTIN, INC., 764 F. Supp. 1342 (D. Minn. 1990)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice, ¶ 56.22[1] (1988) ("Hearsay testimony and opinion testimony that would not be . . .

CITY OF CHANUTE, KANSAS v. WILLIAMS NATURAL GAS COMPANY,, 743 F. Supp. 1437 (D. Kan. 1990)

. . . by the parol evidence rule may be contained in the affidavit. 6 (Pt. 2) MOORE’S FEDERAL PRACTICE ¶[ 56.22 . . .

In CHATEAUGAY CORPORATION, LTV LTV CORPORATION, LTV BCNR v. AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY,, 116 B.R. 887 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1990)

. . . on the witness stand, would be admissible as part of his testimony.” 6 Moore’s Federal Practice at U 56.22 . . . disregard the inadmissible parts and consider the rest of the affidavit.” 6 Moore’s Federal Practice at ¶ 56.22 . . .

FLAIR BROADCASTING CORPORATION, J. N. v. POWERS, P. Jr. N. A. A. P. Jr. BROADCASTING COMPANY OF THE CAROLINAS P. Jr. N. A. A. v. FLAIR BROADCASTING CORPORATION, J. N., 733 F. Supp. 179 (S.D.N.Y. 1990)

. . . Wicker, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.22; see also Jersey Central Power & Light Co. v. . . .

ISAACS, v. MID AMERICA BODY EQUIPMENT COMPANY, a k a J. G. B., 720 F. Supp. 255 (E.D.N.Y. 1989)

. . . Moore Federal Practice par. 56.22[1] at 56-752 to 56-755 (2d ed. 1988) (footnote omitted), Beyah v. . . .

ZAYRE CORPORATION, v. S. M. R. CO. INC., 882 F.2d 1145 (7th Cir. 1989)

. . . Meyer, 781 F.2d 1260, 1267-68 (7th Cir.1986); see also 6 Moore’s Federal Practice, supra, 11 56.22[1] . . .

In FLEET, FLEET, v. UNITED STATES CONSUMER COUNCIL, INC., 103 B.R. 578 (E.D. Pa. 1989)

. . . MOORE, FEDERAL PRACTICE, ¶ 56.22[2], at 56-767 (2d ed. 1988). . . . MOORE, supra, 11 56.22[2], at 56-767 to 56-768, has also recognized the significant burdens which are . . . MOORE, supra, H 56.22[1], at 56-761. . . .

W. HLINKA, v. BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION M. P., 863 F.2d 279 (3d Cir. 1988)

. . . Wicker Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.22[1] (2d ed. 1985). . . .

BORECKI, v. EASTERN INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT CORPORATION,, 694 F. Supp. 47 (D.N.J. 1988)

. . . Wicker, Moore’s Federal Practice 1f 56.22[1] and nn. 18 and 24 (2d Ed.1987). . . .

CONTEMPORARY MISSION, INC. J. J. F. T. O v. NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY,, 842 F.2d 612 (2d Cir. 1988)

. . . Coughlin, 789 F.2d 986, 989 (2d Cir.1986), quoting 6 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.22[1], at 56-1312 . . .

BAMBU SALES, INC. v. SULTANA CRACKERS, INC. v. NU SERVICE TOBACCO CO. INC. BAMBU SALES, INC. v. GULACK TRADING CO. INC. NU Co., 683 F. Supp. 899 (E.D.N.Y. 1988)

. . . at the trial may not properly be set forth in an affidavit.” 6 — Pt. 2 Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 56.22 . . .

THERRIEN, v. UNITED AIR LINES, INC. a, 670 F. Supp. 1517 (D. Colo. 1987)

. . . Fed.R.Civ.P. 56; 6 (Pt. 2) Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.22[2] (1987). I. . . .

INTALITE INTERNATIONAL, N. V. v. NEO RAY LIGHTING SYSTEMS, INC., 667 F. Supp. 114 (S.D.N.Y. 1987)

. . . not exclude the [conflicting] affidavit from consideration____(quoting 6 Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 56.22 . . .

J. DeCINTIO, v. WESTCHESTER COUNTY MEDICAL CENTER, 821 F.2d 111 (2d Cir. 1987)

. . . Wicker, Federal Practice U 56.22[1], at 56-1330 (1986); 10A C. Wright, A. Miller & M. . . .

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, v. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES AFGE LOCAL, 657 F. Supp. 742 (W.D. Tex. 1987)

. . . Moore’s, Federal Practice ¶ 56.22[2] at 56-1341 to 56-1342. . . .

BROWNE v. MAXFIELD, 663 F. Supp. 1193 (E.D. Pa. 1987)

. . . See 6 Moore’s Federal Practice para. 56.22[1] at 56-1321-22 ("the policy of Rule 56(e) is to allow the . . .

GREENBERG, v. FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION,, 803 F.2d 1213 (D.C. Cir. 1986)

. . . Wicker, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.22[1], at 56-1306 to -1312 (2d ed. 1985); 10A C. Wright, A. . . .

SHIELD CLUB, v. CITY OF CLEVELAND,, 647 F. Supp. 274 (N.D. Ohio 1986)

. . . Wicker, 6 Moore’s Federal Practice If 56.22[1] at 56-1315 and -1316. . . .

v., 86 T.C. 1232 (T.C. 1986)

. . . amounts indicated: Columbia Plant Soda Springs Plant 1975 1976 1975 1976 CO gas 51.52% 52.91% 72.21% 56.22% . . .

KAMEN, v. AMERICAN TELEPHONE TELEGRAPH CO., 791 F.2d 1006 (2d Cir. 1986)

. . . Whether made by affidavit or by live testimony (see 6 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.22[1], at 56-1321 . . . See 6 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.22[1], at 56-1312 to 56-1318. . . .

BEYAH, K. H. A. D. K. K. M. J. S. V. v. A. COUGHLIN, DOCS J. J., 789 F.2d 986 (2d Cir. 1986)

. . . the trial may not properly be set forth in [the Rule 56(e) ] affidavit.” 6 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.22 . . .

E. MURRAY, v. THISTLEDOWN RACING CLUB, INC., 770 F.2d 63 (6th Cir. 1985)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice, If 56.22[1], p. 53-1306 (2d ed. 1985); Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e). . . .

UNITED STATES v. BANCO CAFETERO INTERNATIONAL, At UNITED STATES v. ACCOUNT NO. AT CHEMICAL BANK, UNITED STATES v. ACCOUNT NO. AT PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL BANK, UNITED STATES v. ACCOUNT NO. AT MARINE MIDLAND BANK NA, UNITED STATES v. ACCOUNT NO. AT FIRST CHICAGO INTERNATIONAL BANKING CO., 608 F. Supp. 1394 (S.D.N.Y. 1985)

. . . Wicker, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.22 (2d ed. 1982) (discussing the form of affidavits). D. . . .

In MANCHESTER LAKES ASSOCIATES, A, 47 B.R. 798 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 1985)

. . . to such a motion for summary judgment does so at his own risk. 6 Pt. 2 Moore’s Federal Practice II 56.22 . . .

W. PFEIL, Sr. W. Jr. v. D. ROGERS,, 757 F.2d 850 (7th Cir. 1985)

. . . on the witness stand, would be admissible as part of his testimony.” 6 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 56.22 . . .

C. MALDONADO, v. RAMIREZ, 757 F.2d 48 (3d Cir. 1985)

. . . Lucas, Moore’s Federal Practice 11 56.22[1] at 56-1306. (2d ed. 1983). . . .

C. MALDONADO, v. RAMIREZ, 757 F.2d 48 (3d Cir. 1985)

. . . Lucas, Moore’s Federal Practice H 56.22[1] at 56-1306 (2d ed. 1983). . . .

KATCOFF M. v. O. MARSH, Jr., 755 F.2d 223 (2d Cir. 1985)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice f 56.22[1] at 1322-23 (2d ed. 1982); see abo United States v. . . .

C L CONSTRUCTION CO. v. UNITED STATES, 6 Cl. Ct. 791 (Cl. Ct. 1984)

. . . Moore, Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 56.22[1] (2d ed. 1982). . . .

J. WREN, v. HECKLER,, 744 F.2d 86 (10th Cir. 1984)

. . . Continental Oil Co., 598 F.2d 1294 (10th Cir.1974); 6 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.15[6], at 605 and ¶ 56.22 . . .

TRANSURFACE CARRIERS, INC. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY,, 738 F.2d 42 (1st Cir. 1984)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice 11 56.22[2] (2d ed. 1982). . . .

DANMAR ASSOCIATES, v. J. PORTER,, 43 B.R. 423 (D. Conn. 1984)

. . . conclusory allegations to sustain a claim that questions of fact exist. 6 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 56.22 . . .

YORGER, v. PITTSBURGH CORNING CORPORATION,, 733 F.2d 1215 (7th Cir. 1984)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 56.22[2], pp. 2824-2825 (2d ed. 1966) [amended 1982]. Adickes v. S.H. . . .

In F. McEVOY,, 37 B.R. 197 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 1984)

. . . rests on his pleadings in this situation does so at his own risk. 6 Pt. 2 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶56.22 . . . requirements of Rule 56(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 6 Pt. 2 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.22 . . . Western Railway Co., 52 F.R.D. 356, 359-60 (N.D.Ohio, W.D.1971); 6 Pt. 2 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.22 . . .

SEAWELL, v. MILLER BREWING COMPANY,, 576 F. Supp. 424 (M.D.N.C. 1983)

. . . Lee & Co., 406 F.2d 827 (4th Cir.1969); 6 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.22[1], Plaintiffs, however, have . . .

In JAPANESE ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION D. C. MDL No. ZENITH RADIO CORPORATION, v. MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. D. C. No. In JAPANESE ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION D. C. MDL No. NATIONAL UNION ELECTRIC CORPORATION, v. MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. D. C. No. In JAPANESE ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION D. C. MDL No. ZENITH RADIO CORPORATION v. MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. D. C. No. NATIONAL UNION ELECTRIC CORPORATION v. MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. D. C. No. MELCO, 723 F.2d 238 (3d Cir. 1983)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.22[2], at 2824-25 (2d ed. 1966)). . . .

In L. CURTIS, d b a Co., 38 B.R. 364 (Bankr. N.D. Okla. 1983)

. . . Moore’s Federal Practice (2d ed. 1982) Par. 56.01(14); 6 (Part 2) Moore’s Federal Practice, supra, Par. 56.22 . . .

B. FRAZIER, v. COLONIAL WILLIAMSBURG FOUNDATION,, 574 F. Supp. 318 (E.D. Va. 1983)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.22[1] at 1325-26 (2nd ed. 1982). . . .

J. DONOVAN, v. AGNEW, J. DONOVAN, v. AGNEW,, 712 F.2d 1509 (1st Cir. 1983)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice ¶56.22[2], at 2824-2825); Rule 56(e), Notes of Advisory Committee on 1963 Amendment . . .

INDUSTRIAL RISK INSURERS, a a S. A. a a v. CREOLE PRODUCTION SERVICES, INC. a HARBOR INSURANCE COMPANY, v. FLUOR CORPORATION, a, 568 F. Supp. 1323 (D. Alaska 1983)

. . . MOORE, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.22[1] n. 56 (2d ed.1981) and cases cited therein. II. . . .

DAVIS, v. SEARS, ROEBUCK AND COMPANY,, 708 F.2d 862 (1st Cir. 1983)

. . . Wright et al, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 2738 (1983); 6 (Part 2) Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 56.22 . . .

M. SUMMERS, v. ALLIS CHALMERS,, 568 F. Supp. 33 (N.D. Ill. 1983)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice, ¶ 56.22[1]. . . .

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, v. D. BLAVIN, d b a, 557 F. Supp. 1304 (E.D. Mich. 1983)

. . . the question whether there is any genuine issue as to any material fact. 6 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.22 . . .

CITY OF WARRENSBURG, v. RCA CORPORATION, CIT, 550 F. Supp. 1364 (W.D. Mo. 1982)

. . . . ¶ 56.22[1] with approval. . . .

PACIFIC SERVICE STATIONS CO. a a d b a s L. d b a v. MOBIL OIL CORPORATION, a, 689 F.2d 1055 (Temp. Emer. Ct. App. 1982)

. . . See 6 Pt. 2 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.22[1] at 1328 (2d ed. 1982) and cases cited at n. 53. . . .

In O. P. M. LEASING SERVICES, INC. STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION, v. P. HASSETT, O. P. M. O. P. M. La, 21 B.R. 993 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1982)

. . . Carnegie Industries, Inc., Bkrtcy.S.D.N.Y., 8 B.R. 983, 986-87, 24 C.B.C. 39; 6 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.22 . . .

OFFICE SUPPLY CO. INC. a v. BASIC FOUR CORPORATION, a, 538 F. Supp. 776 (E.D. Wis. 1982)

. . . judgment motion in determining if there is a genuine issue for trial. 6 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.22 . . .

In WORLD OF ENGLISH, N. V. In COMMUNICATION STUDIES INTERNATIONAL, LTD. COMMUNICATION STUDIES INTERNATIONAL, LTD. N. V. v. BANK OF AMERICA, N. T. S. A., 19 B.R. 594 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1982)

. . . Siegel, 438 F.Supp. 510 (S.D.Fla.1977); 6 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.22[1], 56-1324. . . . paragraphs ten, eleven, and twelve of his affidavit is admissible in evidence. 6 Moore Federal Practice ¶ 56.22 . . .

D. v., 78 T.C. 646 (T.C. 1982)

. . . Moore’s Federal Practice par. 56.22[1], at 56-1320 to 56-1321 (2d ed. 1948). Indeed, in Sartor v. . . .

In SCRIMPSHER WEGMANS FOOD MARKETS, INC. v. SCRIMPSHER, d b a, 17 B.R. 999 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 1982)

. . . conclusions of law, nor for argument of the party’s cause. 6 (Part 2) Moore’s Federal Practice, supra, ¶ 56.22 . . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 56.22[1] at 56-1321 to 56-1322 (2d ed. 1980). . . . .

J. v. UNITED STATES, 549 F. Supp. 455 (W.D. Mich. 1982)

. . . Kentucky, 490 F.2d 1273, 1275 (6th Cir.1974); 6 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.22[1] at p. 1316. . . .

M. WHITE t a s v. HEARST CORPORATION, 669 F.2d 14 (1st Cir. 1982)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 56.22[2], p. 2824 (2d ed. 1966), ultimately the moving party has the continuing . . .

P. LONDRIGAN, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, 670 F.2d 1164 (D.C. Cir. 1981)

. . . Wicker, Federal Practice 56.22[1] (1980). . See id. . . . .

In SOUTHLAND SUPPLY, INC. JONAS, v. UNITED STATES SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION,, 657 F.2d 1076 (9th Cir. 1981)

. . . See 6 Pt. 2 Moore’s Federal Practice $ 56.22[1], at 56-1306 (2d ed. 1980). . . .

In SOUTHLAND SUPPLY, INC. JONAS, v. UNITED STATES SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION,, 657 F.2d 1076 (9th Cir. 1981)

. . . See 6 Pt. 2 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.22[1], at 56-1306 (2d ed. 1980). . . .

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, v. HALL- TYNER ELECTION CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE,, 524 F. Supp. 955 (S.D.N.Y. 1981)

. . . admissible on the issue of whether or not to grant summary judgment.” 6 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.22 . . .

L. ABRAHAM, v. GRAPHIC ARTS INTERNATIONAL UNION,, 660 F.2d 811 (D.C. Cir. 1981)

. . . Wicker, Federal Practice ¶¶ 56.11, 56.22-56.24 (2d ed. 1976 & 1980); 10 C. Wright & A. . . .

DUDO v. J. SCHAFFER, Jr. W. R. J. No. No., 91 F.R.D. 128 (E.D. Pa. 1981)

. . . the question whether there is any genuine issue as to any material fact. 6 Moore, Federal Practice, ¶ 56.22 . . . only failed to carry his burden diligently to contest the motion, see 6 Moore, Federal Practice, ¶ 56.22 . . .

A. L. PICKENS COMPANY, INC. v. YOUNGSTOWN SHEET TUBE COMPANY,, 650 F.2d 118 (6th Cir. 1981)

. . . affidavit is no place for ultimate facts and conclusions of law.” 6 Moore’s Federal Practice, Part 2, ¶ 56.22 . . .

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)