Case Citator › Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.

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

Criticized by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
477 U.S. 242
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
1,405 of 1,405
Citing cases (total)
135,234
Treatment dates
2008
Criticized by some courts
At least one reviewed court has criticized this case’s reasoning. No reviewed court has overruled it. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. has one confirmed criticism: all 1,405 flagged citations have been read, and that criticism is listed below. Alabama and New Mexico made different choices for their own summary-judgment rules, as the state-law entries below explain.
More on how this was screened

Alabama later replaced the relevant part of its rule. A Florida court applied that state’s former summary-judgment standard to a judgment entered before Florida adopted the federal standard; it did not limit Anderson.

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.

135,234 later cases cite Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.; 1,405 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 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.?

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

Criticized

  • The district court criticized Anderson's guidance on applying a clear-and-convincing evidentiary burden at summary judgment as insufficiently clear, while continuing to apply its rule.

    Massachusetts Institute of Technology v. Harman International Industries, Inc. · D. Mass. · filed

    I note that obscured in the chromatic metaphors deployed by the Supreme Court in Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986), to describe the quantum of evidence to support summary judgment — more than "merely colorable,” id. at 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505, as "presented through the prism of the substantive evidentiary burden,” id. at 254, 106 S.Ct. 2505 — are daunting and insufficiently illuminated questions for the trial judge considering summary judgment motions that turn on a clear and convincing evidentiary burden.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. 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