Griglione v. Martin

How courts have described this case

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

• discussing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552-53, 91 L.Ed.2d 265, 274 (1986)
• stating parties must establish the undisputed facts compelling a particular outcome under controlling law
• stating parties must establish the undisputed facts compelling a particular outcome under controlling law
• requiring “precise” and “specific 7 Sheehan does not argue that our duty analysis affects Ruby’s ability to bring his negligence-per-se claim. See Restatement (Third
• holding even if the district court erred in not submitting a claim against one defendant, we will not remand the case-for new trial if a factual finding against another defendant would preclude the dismissed party from establishing an essential element of the dismissed claim
• “[I]n order for the violation of rules of conduct to constitute negligence per se, those rules must establish specific standards that are to be followed unwaveringly in all instances.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).