Modrowski v. Pigatto’s Empirical Analysis
712 F.3d 1166 · 2013
Citation profile
7 federal appellate ·
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Illinois Northern District Court)
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (Computer Fraud and Abuse Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2701 (§ 201 of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986)
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Waldridge v. American Hoechst Corp. · Koszola v. Board of Education
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he movant's initial burden may be discharged by showing-that is, point out to the district court-that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“demonstrate that there is evidence 'upon which a jury could properly proceed to find a verdict' in her favor”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'does not come forward with evidence that would reasonably permit the finder of fact to find in [its] favor on a material question'”
2 later decisions 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.