Case Citator › Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co.

Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co.

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Superseded by statute
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
398 U.S. 144
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
341 of 341
Citing cases (total)
15,426
Treatment dates
1986–2017
Superseded by statute
A reviewed court treats this case as superseded by later legislation. Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. has been superseded by a rule amendment in part: all 341 flagged citations have been read, with the 2 confirmed treatments listed below. Sanchez v. Hartley held that the 2010 amendments to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 displaced Adickes's requirement that summary-judgment material be submitted in sworn form.
More on how this was screened

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett limited Adickes's separate discussion of the movant's initial burden, while preserving its result. The other reviewed opinions continued to apply Adickes's unaffected summary-judgment, § 1983, joint-action, and municipal-custom rules; reported Celotex or Sanchez's acts; rejected party arguments; or placed unrelated treatment language near the citation. Duplicate copies of the same opinion were reviewed separately but do not create duplicate entries.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

15,426 later cases cite Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co.; 341 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co.?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Superseded by Statute

  • The court held that the 2010 amendments to Rule 56 displaced Adickes's requirement that summary-judgment material be submitted in sworn form.

    Sanchez v. Hartley · D. Colo. · filed

    The cases Dickson cites in support of his position-Adickes v. S. H. Kress ... -have been abrogated on this point by the 2010 amendments to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Limited

  • The Supreme Court limited Adickes's summary-judgment burden language, holding that a movant need not produce evidence negating an issue on which the nonmovant bears the burden of proof.

    Celotex Corp. v. Catrett · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    The Court of Appeals in this case felt itself constrained, however, by language in our decision in Adickes v. S. H. Kress ... But we do not think the Adickes language quoted above should be construed to mean that the burden is on the party moving for summary judgment to produce evidence showing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, even with respect to an issue on which the nonmoving party bears the burden of proof. Instead, as we have explained, the burden on the moving party may be discharged by “showing” — that is, pointing out to the district court — that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace