Summary Judgment
30 groups with Oklahoma opinions1973–2026
- Summary judgment; Judgment motions; Evidence87 opinions · 1976–2024Limiting summary judgment inquiry to presented issues · Determining finality of appeal from partial summary judgment · Determining summary judgment based on presented record
- Rule 56 Standard and Purpose75 opinions · 1979–2025Standards for summary judgment under rule 13 · Interpreting statutory provisions and summary judgment standards · Denying summary judgment when material facts are controverted
- Burden of Proof at Summary Judgment61 opinions · 1973–2020Applying summary judgment standards to factual disputes · Reviewing summary judgment standards on disputed material facts · Reviewing standards for summary judgment and de novo review
- Materiality of Factual Disputes56 opinions · 1989–2024Determining material facts and substantial controversy in litigation · Testing evidentiary sufficiency in summary process · Determining dispute of material fact for summary judgment
- Genuine Issues and the Movant's Burden56 opinions · 1979–2023Determining summary judgment when facts are disputed · Distinguishing interlocutory from final summary judgments · Determining genuine issues for summary judgment
- Summary judgment; Will contests; Rule 74.04(c)41 opinions · 1983–2026Standard of review for summary judgment motions · Examining evidence of undue influence in will contest · Pleading requirements for tort and contract claims
- Summary judgment; Judgment motions; Evidence summary33 opinions · 1979–2023Determining sufficiency of evidence for summary judgment · Reviewing evidence for summary judgment standards · Determining fact issues in motions and evidence rules
- Summary judgment; Rule; Local31 opinions · 1978–2013Granting summary judgment on record presented · Interpreting the scope of the syllabus paragraph · Medical report compliance with rule 20 requirements
- Affidavits; Testimony; Deposition19 opinions · 1994–2022Admitting testimony lacking personal knowledge · Disregarding affidavits contradicting prior testimony · Developing sham affidavit doctrine in summary adjudication
- De Novo Review of Summary Judgment19 opinions · 1995–2024Determining summary adjudication and federal preemption · Standard for appellate review of summary judgment · Determining the standard for summary judgment motions
- Summary judgment; Credibility determinations; Material fact17 opinions · 1990–2019Reviewing summary judgment standards and evidentiary materials · Evaluating summary judgment standards and factual disputes · Indiana summary judgment standard for moving and non-moving parties
- Summary judgment; Judgment motions; Evidence15 opinions · 1974–2019Establishing the standard for summary judgment motions · Determining genuine issues for summary judgment motion · Treat cross-motions for summary judgment separately
- Summary judgment; Discovery; Rule14 opinions · 2015–2024Reviewing application and affidavits under rule 3.11
- Settlement Agreements and Litigation Resolution Doctrines14 opinions · 1978–2021Determining accrual of cause of action under tort claims act · Interpreting contractual language in settlement agreements · Defining privity and collateral estoppel doctrines
- No-Evidence Summary Judgment14 opinions · 2009–2021Reviewing standards for summary judgment motions · Determining if summary judgment triggers attorney fee statute · Resolving factual ambiguities in summary judgment motions
- Summary judgment; Judgment motions; Burden9 opinions · 1979–2021Limiting strict liability to commercial sellers · Analyzing motions for summary judgment and claim sufficiency · Reviewing dismissal standards and summary judgment basis
- Sham Affidavits and Contradictory Testimony9 opinions · 1986–2023Reversing summary judgment and remand for further proceedings · Review standard for summary judgment and affirmative defenses
- Summary judgment; Novo summary; Dead man's8 opinions · 2015–2024Applying de novo standard of review for summary judgment · Review standard for summary judgment motions
- Erie; Referendum; Article8 opinions · 2014–2024Considering incorporation by reference of exhibits · Applying the Erie doctrine to state substantive law
- Summary Judgment and Factual Disputes7 opinions · 1984–1994Determining genuine issues of material fact for trial · Denying summary judgment when factual disputes exist · Excluding unverified answers in summary judgment motions
- Cross-Motions and Constitutional Claims7 opinions · 2013–2019Distinguishing summary judgment from § 2012(B)(6) motions · Reviewing summary judgment motions and constitutional claims
- Summary judgment; Rule 54(b); Trial court's6 opinions · 1996–2019Review standard for summary judgment grants · Review standards for summary judgment and new trial motions
- Evidentiary Standards and Burden of Proof5 opinions · 1990–2024Determining the burden of proof in a case · Shifting burden of proof after defendant's burden is met · Burden shifting preventing definitive determination of rights
- Summary Judgment in Special Proceedings5 opinions · 1987–2017Analyzing summary judgment in juvenile proceedings · Standard of review for summary judgment and duty of good faith
- Determining summary judgment and due process standards · Denying summary judgment due to lack of data · Disregarding prior rulings in summary judgment proceedings
- Determining applicability of statutory amendments to contracts
- Insufficiency of self-serving assertions to defeat summary judgment
- Determining genuine issues of material fact for summary judgment · Strict compliance and ambiguity construction in letters of credit · Review of summary judgment on whistleblower claims
- Reviewing summary judgment standards and statutory requirements · Determining scope of settlement release regarding third-party claims
- Insured abandoning effort to change beneficiary
Counts are Oklahoma courts’ opinions citing pages in each group (an opinion citing two issues counts in both).
How this is built: each issue is a set of opinion pages that later courts cite for the same proposition, grouped from what the citing courts wrote. Names are machine-written from those citations; read the cases before relying on them. Search case law