126 F. Supp. 154
U.S. District Court
Decided August 6, 1954
U.S. District Court · decided 1954-08-06
Key passage — most relied on by later courts
“[t]here is no authority for the relief sought, by way of a summary proceeding or motion, excepting where there is no genuine issue of fact, the Courts have entertained motions for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56, Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.”
quoted by 1 later decision, including 618 So. 2d 1033 - Perry v. Allied Offshore Marine Corp.
Relies on Rackus v. Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc. · Brady v. Waterman S. S. Corp.
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1954-08-06
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently May 2013
9 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →
¶1The cases submitted by the plaintiff are not in point. The recoveries therein were after trial. There is no authority for the relief sought, by way of a summary proceeding or motion, excepting where there is no genuine issue of fact, the Courts have entertained motions for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56, Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. 28 U.S.C.A. See Rackus v. Moore-McCormack, D.C., 85 F.Supp. 185; Brady v. Waterman, D.C., 10 F.R.D. 629.
¶2The motion is denied without prejudice.