J. J. Lawson, Doing Business Under the Name of Industrial Manufacturing Company v. American Motorists Insurance Corporation’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions

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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““3. These attached papers, according to the record, are not sworn or certified as required by Rule 56(e). Although that Rule seems literally to require that all papers referred to in affidavits be attached and sworn or certified, it would be an idle formality to defer entry of the judgment where the papers really material to the motion for summary judgment and determinative of it, are properly verified and in proper form. Mellen v. Hirsch, supra. Moore says the requirement of attaching sworn copies applies to “material documents.” 6 Moore, Federal Procedure 2334. We think it applies not even to all material documents, but only documents the contents of which are materially in issue, at least when no objection to the use of such documents in connection with the motion has been made. Here, plaintiff made no such objection. In short, we view this as an immaterial irregularity, in. spite of the dicta in Sprague v. Vogt, 8 Cir., 150 F. 2d 705 ; Walling v. Fairmont Creamery Co., 8 Cir., 139 F. 2d 318 ; and similar cases. Here, construction of the policy and riders is not an issue necessary to be decided. If those papers had been omitted entirely, there was still sufficient in the record to support the summary judgment, as will be shown, infra, and therefore any lack of formal compliance with Rule 56(e) was unimportant. Cromwell v. Hillsborough Tp., Somerset county, N.J., 3 Cir., 149 F. 2d 617 , affirmed 326 U.S. 620 , 66 S. Ct. 445 , 90 L. Ed. 358 ; New York Life Ins. Co. v. Wilkin”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 149 Ind. App. 529 - Apple v. Apple

2. ““If the parts of these papers which the trial court was permitted to consider by Rule 56(3), R. C. P., 28 U. S. C., conclusively show that there was no genuine issue of fact in the premises, then it was correct to grant the motion for summary judgment.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 149 Ind. App. 529 - Apple v. Apple