District of Columbia· 3/10/1998
Sage v. Broadcasting Publications, Inc.
Citations
- 997 F. Supp. 49
- 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3384
- 1998 WL 125697
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- declining to address each alleged fraudulent misrepresentation in plaintiff’s complaint “because the misrepresentations discussed [in the decision were] sufficient to establish a prima facie case of fraudulent misrepresentation”
- “Conclusory allegations made in affidavits opposing a motion for summary judgment are insufficient to create a genuine issue 31 of material fact.”
- “Conclusory allegations made in affidavits opposing a motion for summary judgment are insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact.”
- granting summary judgment motion on fraud claim
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Stanley S. Harris
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
17 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Daisley v. Riggs Bank, N.A.District of Columbia· 2005-05-31· cited 96×
- Mokhtar v. ClintonDistrict of Columbia· 2015-03-13· cited 57×
- Roberson v. SnowDistrict of Columbia· 2005-09-12· cited 41×
- United States v. Toyobo Co. LtdDistrict of Columbia· 2011-09-02· cited 41×
- EIG Energy Fund XIV, L.P. v. Petróleo Brasileiro S.A.District of Columbia· 2017-03-30· cited 32×
- Mitchell v. National RR Passenger Corp.District of Columbia· 2005-12-30· cited 19×
- Robinson v. District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia· 2015-09-15· cited 17×
- Sununu v. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC.District of Columbia· 2011-06-20· cited 16×
- Kilby-Robb v. DuncanDistrict of Columbia· 2017-03-30· cited 4×
- Liew v. District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia· 2017-09-30· cited 1×
- Sununu v. Philippine AirlinesDistrict of Columbia· 2011-06-20
- Drewrey v. RiceDistrict of Columbia· 2011-01-26
- Cascina Ca De Lupis, S.R.L. v. BoninoDistrict of Columbia· 2010-03-31
- Adduci v. KraneDistrict of Columbia· 2015-02-04
- Pinson v. United States Department of JusticeDistrict of Columbia· 2020-03-30
- Shorter v. Architect of the CapitolDistrict of Columbia· 2020-08-25
- Baskerville v. CBS News Inc.District of Columbia· 2022-03-02
Cites
17 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court· 1986-06-25· cited 135,235×
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court· 1986-06-25· cited 119,442×
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court· 1986-03-26· cited 58,760×
- Jose MEDINA-MUNOZ, Etc., Et Al., Plaintiffs, Appellants, v. R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, Defendant, AppelleeFirst Circuit· 1990-02-15· cited 1,782×
- Alfred A. Altimont, Inc. v. Chatelain, Samperton & NolanDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals· 1977-05-05· cited 82×
- Brown v. CarrDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals· 1986-01-22· cited 81×
- Vaughn v. Teledyne, Inc.Ninth Circuit· 1980-09-17· cited 70×
- Dresser v. Sunderland Apartments Tenants Ass'nDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals· 1983-08-22· cited 58×
- Remeikis v. Boss & Phelps, Inc.District of Columbia Court of Appeals· 1980-08-28· cited 57×
- Florence Goldman v. August BequaiD.C. Circuit· 1994-05-25· cited 53×
- Pyne v. Jamaica Nutrition Holdings Ltd.District of Columbia Court of Appeals· 1985-08-23· cited 46×
- Margaret L. Hitchcock and Wilbur W. Hitchcock v. United States of America, Margaret L. Hitchcock and Wilbur W. Hitchcock v. United StatesD.C. Circuit· 1981-09-03· cited 42×
- Celex Group, Inc. v. Executive Gallery, Inc.N.D. Illinois· 1995-01-31· cited 37×
- Feltman v. SarbovDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals· 1976-11-22· cited 35×
- Hollywood Credit Clothing Co. v. GibsonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals· 1963-03-01· cited 26×
- Kent Homes, Incorporated v. FrankelDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals· 1957-01-14· cited 12×
- Levinson v. Evening Star Newspaper Co.District of Columbia· 1955-11-17· cited 3×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.