Pisano v. Strach’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 federal appellate · 1 district ·

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

1. “mandates that summary judgment be [postponed] when the nonmovant 'has not had the opportunity to discover information that is essential to his opposition.' " Pisano v. Strach , 743 F.3d 927 , 931 (4th Cir. 2014) (quoting Ingle ex rel. Estate of Ingle v. Yelton , 439 F.3d 191 , 195 (4th Cir. 2006) ). However, a court may deny a Rule 56(d) motion "when the information sought would not by itself create a genuine issue of material fact sufficient for the nonmovant to survive summary judgment.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hodgin v. UTC Fire & Sec. Ams. Corp. · Gordon v. Cigna Corp.

2. “"the character and magnitude of the asserted injury to the rights protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments that the plaintiff seeks to vindicate" against "the precise interests put forward by the State as justifications for the burden imposed by its rule," taking into consideration "the extent to which those interests make it necessary to burden the plaintiff's rights."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Poindexter v. Strach · 80 F. Supp. 3d 692 - Sarvis v. Judd

3. “mandates that summary judgment be [postponed] when the nonmovant 'has not had the opportunity to discover information that is essential to his opposition.'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hodgin v. UTC Fire & Sec. Ams. Corp. · Janet Hodgin v. UTC Fire & Security Americas