United States v. Diebold, 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 if “contrary inferences” from the evidence might be permissible, summary judgment is inappropriate
• adopting this two-step procedure of reformation under § 1132(a)(3) and an award of benefits under § 1132(a)(1)(B)
• construing Fed. R. Crim. P. 56 , upon which Rule 121 is based
• the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion under consideration
• courts cannot choose from among rational inferences that could be drawn from underlying facts where trial would be to a jury
• both observing that evidentiary submissions by movant for summary judgment “must be viewed in the light most favorable to the opposing party”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).