Legal Opinion

Schering Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. Home Insurance Company, Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided June 21, 1983No. 1314, Dockets 83-7056, 83-7102PublishedCited by 339 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

KAUFMAN, Circuit Judge:

When a motion for summary judgment presents complex legal issues with far-reaching implications, a judge must balance two competing goals. Confronted with the prospect of lengthy pre-trial proceedings that postpone the day of judgment, the district court must conserve judicial resources by promptly resolving those matters in which “no genuine issue as to any material fact” is presented. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). At the same time, justice requires careful consideration of the entire posture of the case so the “drastic device” of summary judgment, Heyman v. Commerce and…

2Cases cited11 opinions

Annette Heyman v. Commerce and Industry Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1975
Quinn v. Syracuse Model Neighborhood Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1980
Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. WesolowskiNew York Court of Appeals · 1973
Lipsky v. Commonwealth United Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1976
Keene Corp. v. Insurance Co. of North AmericaCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1981

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by339 opinions

Eastway Construction Corp. v. City of New YorkCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1985
Belinda MARTIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NANNIE AND THE NEWBORNS, INC.; Business Solutions, Inc.; Larry D. Gudgel, Defendants-AppelleesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1993
Zalaski v. City of Bridgeport Police DepartmentCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2010
Francisco Franco v. Walter Kelly, Lt. Moscicki and Officer HigleyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1988
Coach Leatherware Co. v. Anntaylor, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1991

334 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.