Parker v. King’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently August 2009
7 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.
Relationships
Relies on Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. · Sartor v. Arkansas Natural Gas Corp. · National Screen Service Corp. v. Poster Exchange, Inc. · Phoenix Savings & Loan, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. · Nyhus v. Travel Management Corp.
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“" 'A plethora of federal cases say that the party moving for summary judgment must clearly establish that the other party could not recover under "any discernible circumstances." Rotermund v. United States Steel Corp. , 474 F.2d 1139 (8th Cir. 1973); Nyhus v. Travel Management Corp. , 151 U.S.App.D.C. 269 , 466 F.2d 440 (1972); Phoenix Savings and Loan, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co. , 381 F.2d 245 (4th Cir., 1967). The moving papers of the defendant simply do not do that. There is certainly a possibility of a jury verdict for the plaintiff as the record stands now. " '[T]he record must negate the probability that evidence calling for a contrary result might be developed at the trial. If the pleadings, affidavits, and depositions available when the motion for summary judgment must be ruled on fail to resolve any relevant issue, summary judgment is premature.' "The defendant has not precluded the possibility, as a matter of law , that the plaintiff might not [sic] prove her case. The fact that she is perhaps unlikely to prevail at trial is not a standard to be applied. Jobson v. Henne , 355 F.2d 129 (2d Cir., 1966); National Screen Service Corp. v. Poster Exchange, Inc. , 305 F.2d 647 (5th Cir., 1962). The judge need not believe the opposing party's evidence in order to deny summary judgment. Nor must he feel that a jury would necessarily believe it. Sartor v. Arkansas Natural Gas Corp. , 321 U.S. 620 , 64 S.Ct. 724 , 88 L.Ed. 967 (1944). The moving party is trying to s”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Rotermund v. United States Steel Corp. , 474 F.2d 1139 (8th Cir. 1973); Nyhus v. Travel Management Corp. , 151 U.S.App.D.C. 269 , 466 F.2d 440 (1972); Phoenix Savings and Loan, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co. , 381 F.2d 245 (4th Cir., 1967). The moving papers of the defendant simply do not do that. There is certainly a possibility of a jury verdict for the plaintiff as the record stands now.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“"It has often been stated that summary judgments are not proper in negligence cases. Moore's Federal Practice, Vol. 6, § 56.17[42], p. 56-946. In Folmar v. Montgomery Fair Company, Inc. , 293 Ala. 686 , 690 , 691 , 309 So.2d 818 (1975), this Court stated:”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.