Chemical Engineering Corporation and John O. McLean v. Essef Industries, Inc. And Willard Stutzman

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• “General assertions of fact issues, general denials, and eonclusory statements are insufficient to shoulder the non-movant’s burden.”
• plaintiffs counsel asserting that the basis of RQ2’s claim is “the technology behind the label”
• “[Wjhere a non-movant has failed to establish specific fact issues in-response to a Rule 56 motion, he cannot later be heard to attack the judgment on the basis of matters that, had he but raised them earlier, might have precluded its grant.”
• test results of pH levels

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).