Romero v. Philip Morris Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that in response to the movant’s showing of entitlement to summary judgment, the non-movant must show, rather than merely argue, the existence of evidence that warrants a trial on the merits
• stating that “[a]n inference is not 14 a supposition or a conjecture, but is a logical deduction from facts proved and guess 15 work is not a substitute therefor” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)
• applying Williamson Oil analysis in affirming summary judgment for same tobacco companies involved in this case on claim of wholesale price-fixing conspiracy brought by class of indirect cigarette purchasers under New Mexico’s antitrust laws
• “When 12 disputed facts do not support reasonable inferences, they cannot serve as a basis for 13 denying summary judgment.”
• “An inference is not a supposition or a 9 conjecture, but is a logical deduction from facts proved[.]” (internal quotation marks 10 and citation omitted)
• “When disputed facts do not support reasonable inferences, they cannot serve as a basis for denying summary judgment. Only when the inferences are reasonable is summary judgment inappropriate.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).