Kennedy v. Bennett’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘A summary judgment is to be entered in a case if, but only if, the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Rule 56(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A summary judgment upon motion therefor by a defendant in an action should never be entered except where the defendant is entitled to its allowance beyond all doubt. To warrant its entry the facts conceded by the plaintiff, or demonstrated beyond reasonable question to exist, should show the right of the defendant to a judgment with such clarity as to leave no room for controversy, and they should show affirmatively that the plaintiff would not be entitled to recover under any discernible circumstances. * * * A summary judgment is an extreme remedy, and, under the rule, should be awarded only when the truth is quite clear, (citing cases) And all reasonable doubts touching the existence of a genuine issue as to a material fact must be resolved against the party moving for summary judgment. Sarnoff v. Ciaglia, 3 Cir., 165 F.2d 167 .’ ””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Searle v. Great Northern Railway Co. · John Wright & Associates, Inc. v. Ullrich

2. ““Summary judgment may be used in all types of litigation, but there are .some kinds of cases which lend themselves more readily to summary adjudication than others. Statistics show it is granted more frequently in actions on notes and for debts than in other kinds of cases. Three classes of litigation which are not usually suited for summary disposition are (1) negligence actions, (2) actions involving state of mind, (3) equitable actions. 3 Barron & Holtzoff, Federal Practice & Procedure, Rules Ed., § 1232 et seq.” “Summary judgment is generally not feasible in negligence cases because the standard of the reasonable man must be applied to conflicting testimo ny. Issues of negligence and such related issues as wanton or contributory negligence are ordinarily not susceptible of summary adjudication either for or against a claimant and should be resolved by trial in the ordinary manner. Summary judgment should not be granted on the ground of contributory negligence except in an extraordinary, unusual, or rare case where the facts are conceded or demonstrated beyond reasonable question and show a right to summary judgment with such clarity as to leave no room for controversy. Contributory negligence to bar recovery must be the proximate cause of the injury and since both are fact questions generally are not subject to summary adjudication. 3 Barron & Holtzoff, Federal Practice & Procedure, Rules Ed., § 1232.1; 6 Moore’s Federal Practice, 2d Ed., § 56.17(42); 35B C.J.S. Federal C”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Clark v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad

3. ““Rule 56 authorizes summary judgment only where the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, where it is quite clear what the truth is, that no genuine issue- remains for trial, and that the purpose of the rule is not to cut litigants off from their right of trial by jury if they really have issues to try.” (Our emphasis.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Williams v. Chick