Paul v. Steinert

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that “[f]ailure of a non-moving party to adduce sufficient evidence on an issue essential to his case and on which it bears the burden of proof establishes the entitlement of the moving party to judgment as a matter of law.”
• noting that conclusions by experts may be disputed at the summary judgment stage, but the credibility of, and weight afforded to, the testimony of expert and lay witnesses is for the trier of fact, and are not proper considerations at summary judgment
• noting that conclusions by experts may be disputed at the summary judgment stage, but the credibility of, and weight afforded to, the testimony of expert and lay witnesses is for the trier of fact, and are not proper considerations at summary judgment
• noting in a negligence action that “this Court has continued to apply the assumption of the risk doctrine, albeit while acknowledging that its continuing vitality remains in doubt.” (citation omitted)
• noting in a negligence action that “this Court has continued to apply the assumption of the risk doctrine, albeit while acknowledging that its continuing vitality remains in doubt.” (citation omitted)
• in deciding a motion for summary judgment, the court must view the record in a light most favorable to the non-moving party and all doubts as to the existence of a genuine issue of material fact must be resolved against the moving party

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).