W. R. Lloyd, Jr., and Margene West Lloyd v. Charles H. Lawrence, Jr.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 federal appellate · 2 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “are among the most suitable classes of cases for summary judgement.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Colony Creek, Ltd., Plaintiff-Counter v. Resolution Trust Corp., as Successor to University Savings Association and William A. Paddock, Etc., Defendants-Counter v. Affiliated Capital Corp., and Billy B. Goldberg, Counter · Colony Creek, Ltd. v. Resolution Trust Corp. ex rel. University Savings Ass'n

2. ““A summary judgment is neither a method of avoiding the necessity for proving one’s case nor a clever procedural gambit whereby a claimant can shift to his adversary his burden of proof on one or more issues. (Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. [1969] 398 U.S. 144 , 90 S.Ct. 1598 , 26 L.Ed. (sic) 142.) To obtain a judgment in favor of a claimant pursuant to his complaint, counterclaim or cross-claim, the moving party must offer evidence sufficient to support a finding upon every element of his claim for relief, except those elements admitted by his adversary in his pleadings, or by stipulation, or otherwise during the course of pretrial. A plaintiff seeking summary judgment who has failed to produce such evidence on one or more essential elements of his cause of action is no more ‘entitled to a judgment’ (Rule 56(c) Fed.R.Civ.Proc.) than is a plaintiff who has fully tried his case and who has neglected to offer evidence sufficient to support a finding on a material issue upon which he bears the burden of proof. (See 6 J. Moore, Federal Practice (2d ed. 1966) * * * § 56.-22[2], at 2825.) In either situation there is a failure of proof.” —United States v. Dibble, 429 F.2d 598, 601 (9 Cir. 1970), quoted in Lloyd v. Lawrence, 472 F.2d 313, 318 (5 Cir. 1973).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. American Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Dubuque Communications Corp.

3. “pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, 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 judgment as a matter of law.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., in Its Corporate Capacity v. Cardinal Oil Well Servicing Co., Inc., Jim Cardinal, Don H. Wilson and Paul Condit