Case Citator › Lavespere v. Niagara Machine & Tool Works

Lavespere v. Niagara Machine & Tool Works

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

Abrogated
Court
Fifth Circuit
Citation
910 F.2d 167
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
295 of 295
Citing cases (total)
441
Treatment dates
1994–2016
Abrogated
A reviewed court treats this case as abrogated by later authority. Lavespere v. Niagara Machine & Tool Works has been abrogated on one summary-judgment point and superseded by an amended rule on another: all 295 flagged citations have been read, and the 2 confirmed treatments are listed below. En banc Little v. Liquid Air Corp. rejected Lavespere's dictum that summary judgment is generally inappropriate for certain case categories.
More on how this was screened

The 2009 amendment to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) replaced Lavespere's former ten-day filing period with twenty-eight days. The reviewed opinions continued to apply Lavespere's unaffected reconsideration and new-evidence rules or merely reported Little's act.

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.

441 later cases cite Lavespere v. Niagara Machine & Tool Works; 295 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 Lavespere v. Niagara Machine & Tool Works?

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

Abrogated

  • The en banc court rejected as “essentially empty chatter” Lavespere's dictum that summary judgment is generally inappropriate in products-liability, negligence, or other categories of cases.

    Little v. Liquid Air Corp. · Fifth Circuit (en banc) · filed

    Our cases have sometimes stated in dicta that summary judgment is generally not appropriate in certain types of cases, such as products liability or negligence. See, e.g., Lavespere v. Niagara Machine & Tool Works, Inc., 910 F.2d 167, 178 (5th Cir.1990) ... That dicta is essentially empty chatter, however, inasmuch as we have never reversed a district court's entry of summary judgment solely because it involved a particular class of allegations. In any event, we reject any suggestion that the appropriateness of summary judgment can be determined by such case classification
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Superseded by statute

  • The district court recognized that the 2009 amendment to Rule 59(e) superseded Lavespere's ten-day filing period by extending it to twenty-eight days.

    Namer v. Scottsdale Insurance · E.D. La. · filed

    All of these cases cite the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Lavespere v. Niagara Mach. & Tool Works, Inc., 910 F.2d 167 (5th Cir.1990) abrogated on other grounds by Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069 (5th Cir.1994). ... The ten-day time limit referred to in Lavespere was extended to twenty-eight days when the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were amended in 2009. See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 59(e).
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Lavespere v. Niagara Machine & Tool Works 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