Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 191 F.3d 790 - Eugene Liu v. T&h MacHine Inc.

Eugene Liu v. T&h MacHine Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

191 F.3d 790 · 1999

Citation profile

55
cited by 55 later decisions
2
states following
January 2022
most recently cited

10 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently January 2022 · most notably Steven J. Holman and Karen L. Holman v. State of Indiana and Indiana Department of Transportation (2000), Gunville v. Walker (2009)

10 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

3401999200020102020decided

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.

Relationships

Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Erie Co v. Tompkins · Foman v. Davis

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “A party must present more than mere speculation or conjecture to defeat a summary judgment motion.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The nonmovant need not depose h[is] own witnesses or produce evidence in a form that would be admissible at trial, but [ ]he must go beyond the pleadings ( e.g., produce affidavits, depositions, answers to interrogatories, or admissions on file) to demonstrate that there is evidence upon which a jury could properly proceed to find a verdict in h[is] favor.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Moreover, the non-movant need not match the movant witness for witness, nor persuade the court that his case is convincing; he need only come forward with appropriate evidence demonstrating that there is a pending dispute of material fact.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.