Home
Menu
Call attorney Graham Syfert at 904-383-7448
Personal Injury Lawyer
Florida Statute 56.15 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
F.S. 56.15 Case Law from Google Scholar
Statute is currently reporting as:
Link to State of Florida Official Statute Google Search for Amendments to 56.15

The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title VI
CIVIL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Chapter 56
FINAL PROCESS
View Entire Chapter
F.S. 56.15
56.15 Executions; stay of illegal writs.If any execution issues illegally, the judgment debtor may obtain a stay by making and delivering an affidavit to the officer having the execution, stating the illegality and whether any part of the execution is due, with a bond with surety payable to the judgment creditor in double the amount of the execution or the part of which a stay is sought conditioned to pay the execution or part claimed to be illegal and any damages for delay if the affidavit is not well founded. On receipt of such affidavit and bond the officer shall stay proceedings on the execution and return the bond and affidavit to the court from which the execution issued. The court shall pass on the question of illegality as soon as possible. If the execution is adjudged illegal in any part, the court shall stay it as to the part but if it is adjudged legal in whole or in part, the court shall enter judgment against the principal and surety on such bond for the amount of so much of the execution as is adjudged to be legal and execution shall issue thereon.
History.ss. 2, 3, Feb. 15, 1834; RS 1195; GS 1624; RGS 2828; CGL 4515; s. 11, ch. 67-254; s. 9, ch. 2016-33.
Note.Former s. 55.37.

F.S. 56.15 on Google Scholar

F.S. 56.15 on Casetext

Amendments to 56.15


Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 56.15
Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 56.15.



Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

COMMON CAUSE, v. A. RUCHO, Co- v. A. Co-, 318 F. Supp. 3d 777 (M.D.N.C. 2018)

. . . Hofeller's partisanship variable, would decline from 56.15 percent to 49.30 percent. Id. at 11. . . .

FURCRON, v. MAIL CENTERS PLUS, LLC,, 843 F.3d 1295 (11th Cir. 2016)

. . . (quoting Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.15 (2d ed. 1985)) (alterations in original). . . .

MARTIN, v. CITY OF READING Pa, 118 F. Supp. 3d 751 (E.D. Pa. 2015)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.15(8), at 2440-41 (2d ed.1965)). . . .

CAPITOL RECORDS, LLC, v. ReDIGI INC., 934 F. Supp. 2d 640 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)

. . . (RD Rep. 56.15 ¶ 18.) . . .

In TRAFFORD DISTRIBUTING CENTER, INC. a k a R. v. H. J., 414 B.R. 858 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2009)

. . . Celotex Corporation, 805 F.2d 949, 953 (11th Cir.1986) (quoting 6 Moore’s Federal Practice para. 56.15 . . .

GELL, v. TOWN OF AULANDER, L. N., 252 F.R.D. 297 (E.D.N.C. 2008)

. . . (quoting 6 Moore’s Federal Practice para. 56.15(4) (2d ed.1985)); Flannery v. Recording Indus. . . .

BROWN, v. HOVATTER,, 516 F. Supp. 2d 547 (D. Md. 2007)

. . . (Pl.Ex. 21, Ruck Dep. 56.15-57.11.) . . .

L. BURRIS, v. RICHARDS PAYING, INC., 461 F. Supp. 2d 244 (D. Del. 2006)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.15(4), at 56-524, 56-512.3 to 56-530 (2d ed.1976)). . . .

FLYNN v. VEAZEY CONSTRUCTION CORP., 424 F. Supp. 2d 24 (D.D.C. 2006)

. . . Tippens, 805 F.2d at 953 (quoting 6 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.15[4] (2d ed.1985)). . . .

MCILWAIN, v. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH, NORTHCOAST BEHAVIORAL HEALTHCARE SYSTEM,, 409 F. Supp. 2d 908 (N.D. Ohio 2006)

. . . Regis Paper Co., 491 F.2d 1193 (6th Cir.1974); 6 Moore’s Federal Practice 56.15 [1.-0]. . . .

NATSOURCE LLC, v. GFI GROUP, INC. M. D G. Jr. D., 332 F. Supp. 2d 626 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 56.15(3) at 56-486 to 65-187 (2d ed.1976) (cited by Contemporary Mission Inc . . .

HOFFENBERG, v. HOFFMAN POLLOK,, 288 F. Supp. 2d 527 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)

. . . Moore, et al., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.15 (2d ed.1983). . . .

BOGGS, v. DIE FLIEDERMAUS, LLP. d b a Le, 286 F. Supp. 2d 291 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)

. . . Moore, et al., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.15 (2d ed.1983). . . .

SAFFIRE CORPORATION, v. NEWKIDCO. LLC., 286 F. Supp. 2d 302 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)

. . . Moore, et al., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.15 (2d ed.1983). . . .

NOMURA SECURITIES INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. E TRADE SECURITIES, INC., 280 F. Supp. 2d 184 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)

. . . Moore, et al., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.15 (2d ed.1983). . . .

A. GREENBERG, v. CHRUST,, 282 F. Supp. 2d 112 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)

. . . Moore, et al., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.15 (2d ed.1983). . . .

STAHLEX- INTERHANDEL TRUSTEE, v. WESTERN UNION FINANCIAL SERVICES EASTERN EUROPE LIMITED, USSR, 279 F. Supp. 2d 221 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)

. . . Moore, et al., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.15 (2d ed.1983). . . .

ARBITRON, INC. v. TRALYN BROADCASTING, INC. JMD, d b a WLNF- FM WROA- AM WZKX- FM WGCM- AM- FM,, 269 F. Supp. 2d 264 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)

. . . Moore, et al., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.15 (2d ed.1983). . . .

RYPKEMA v. TIME MANUFACTURING COMPANY, v. f k a v., 263 F. Supp. 2d 687 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)

. . . Moore, et al., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.15 (2d ed.1983). . . .

CAPITOL RECORDS, INC. v. NAXOS OF AMERICA, INC., 262 F. Supp. 2d 204 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)

. . . Moore, et al., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.15 (2d ed.1983). . . .

H. WALKER, C. S. v. SMITH, L. L. d b a, 257 F. Supp. 2d 691 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)

. . . Moore, et al., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.15 (2d ed.1983). . . .

BOGGS, v. DIE FLIEDERMAUS, LLP. d b a Le, 255 F. Supp. 2d 291 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)

. . . Moore, et al., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.15 (2d ed.1983). . . .

WELLS FARGO BANK NORTHWEST, N. A. v. TACA INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES, S. A JHM S. A. S. A JHM S. A. v. C- S, 247 F. Supp. 2d 352 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)

. . . summary judgment typically granted only after adequate time for discovery); Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 56.15 . . .

GREEN, v. PITTSBURGH PLATE GLASS COMPANY,, 224 F. Supp. 2d 1348 (N.D. Ala. 2002)

. . . affidavit and the two in conjunction may disclose an issue of credibility.” 6 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.15 . . .

FRANK v. FOREST COUNTY,, 194 F. Supp. 2d 867 (E.D. Wis. 2002)

. . . Total Black Total 7 488 274 56.15% 207 42.42% 0_0.00% 36.FCPC Plans 1 and 2 have the following racial . . .

ACME ROLL FORMING COMPANY, v. HOME INSURANCE COMPANY,, 31 F. App'x 866 (6th Cir. 2002)

. . . denied, 488 U.S. 880, 109 S.Ct. 196, 102 L.Ed.2d 166 (1988) (quoting 6 Moore’s Federal Practice 11 56.15 . . .

J. SKERL, v. ARROW INTERNATIONAL, INC., 202 F. Supp. 2d 748 (N.D. Ohio 2001)

. . . Regis Paper Co., 491 F.2d 1193 (6th Cir.1974); 6 Moore’s Federal Practice 56.15 [1.—0]. . . .

A. MARCH, v. E. LEVINE R., 249 F.3d 462 (6th Cir. 2001)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.15[1][a], at 56-200 to 56-201 (3d ed.2000). . . .

NORRIS, v. BANGOR PUBLISHING CO., 53 F. Supp. 2d 495 (D. Me. 1999)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 56.15(6), at 2427.) . . .

F. W. ALEXIS, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,, 44 F. Supp. 2d 331 (D.D.C. 1999)

. . . See 6 Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 56.15[3] (2d ed.1995). . . .

HERBST, v. SYSTEM ONE INFORMATION MANAGEMENT, L. L. C. d b a, 31 F. Supp. 2d 1025 (N.D. Ohio 1998)

. . . Regis Paper Co., 491 F.2d 1193 (6th Cir.1974); 6 Moore’s Federal Practice 56.15 [1.-0]. . . .

VEILLEUX, v. NATIONAL BROADCASTING COMPANY, INC., 8 F. Supp. 2d 23 (D. Me. 1998)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 56.15(6), at 2427). . . .

McCAFFERTY, v. CENTERIOR SERVICE COMPANY,, 983 F. Supp. 715 (N.D. Ohio 1997)

. . . Regis Paper Co., 491 F.2d 1193 (6th Cir.1974); 6 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.15 [1.-0]., the court . . .

IVY, v. KIMBROUGH W., 115 F.3d 550 (8th Cir. 1997)

. . . MooRE et al„ Mooee’s Fedebal PRACTICE § 56.15[l][a] (3d ed. 1997), and eases cited. . . .

T. HARRIS, v. H W CONTRACTING COMPANY,, 102 F.3d 516 (11th Cir. 1996)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.15[7] (2d ed.1996) (same); 10A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur . . .

In GLADOS, INC. U. S. TRUSTEE, v. M. FISHBACK S., 83 F.3d 1360 (11th Cir. 1996)

. . . The bankruptcy court awarded the Trustee $8,927.25 in fees and $56.15 in expenses. . . .

In GLADOS, INC. U. S. TRUSTEE, v. M. FISHBACK S., 83 F.3d 1360 (11th Cir. 1996)

. . . The bankruptcy court awarded the Trustee $8,927.25 in fees and $56.15 in expenses. . . .

KROLL, v. DISNEY STORE, INC., 899 F. Supp. 344 (E.D. Mich. 1995)

. . . Moore’s Federal Practice, 2nd Ed., Rule 56, paragraph 56.15[1] and 56.17[20-1]. . . .

BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC. v. W. R. GRACE CO. CONN., 918 F. Supp. 533 (D. Conn. 1994)

. . . Moore, supra, ¶ 56.15[8] at 273. BellSouth has not done this. . . .

PERKINS, v. LAKE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF UTILITIES,, 860 F. Supp. 1262 (N.D. Ohio 1994)

. . . Regis Paper Co., 491 F.2d 1193 (6th Cir.1974); 6 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.15[l.-0]. . . .

FIELD v. KIRTON, 856 F. Supp. 88 (D. Conn. 1994)

. . . "normally should not be granted before discovery is completed,” see 6 Moore's Federal Practice, 11 56.15 . . . See 6 Moore's Federal Practice, ¶56.15[5] at 56-310 to 56-311. . . .

TALARIA WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC. v. LAIDLAW WASTE SYSTEMS, INC., 827 F. Supp. 843 (D. Mass. 1993)

. . . Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice, ¶¶ 56.15[6], 56.23 (2d ed. 1993). . . .

DIXON H. v. CSX TRANSPORTATION, INCORPORATED, a a a CSX a, 990 F.2d 1440 (4th Cir. 1993)

. . . CSX paid 56.15% of the wages and expenses of the SWIB traveling agents during the month of Mr. . . .

COOK, v. BABBITT,, 819 F. Supp. 1 (D.D.C. 1993)

. . . Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice, pt. 2, para. 56.15[4], at 56-268 (1992) (credibility determinations . . .

In LENARD, UNITED STATES v. LENARD,, 140 B.R. 550 (D. Colo. 1992)

. . . Wicker, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶56.15[6] at 56-326 (1988). . . .

LOPEZ, v. CORPORACI N AZUCARERA PUERTO RICO,, 938 F.2d 1510 (1st Cir. 1991)

. . . See generally 6 Moore’s ¶ 56.15[3]. . . .

L. DILTZ, v. UNITED STATES, 771 F. Supp. 95 (D. Del. 1991)

. . . Wicker, Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.15[6]. . . .

In A. LEE, B. LOGAN, Jr. v. CONSUMER CREDIT COUNSELING SERVICE OF CENTRAL OHIO, INC., 126 B.R. 978 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1991)

. . . real doubt as to the existence of any genuine issue of material fact. 6 MOORE’S FEDERAL PRACTICE para. 56.15 . . .

YOUNGDALE SONS CONSTRUCTION CO. INC. v. UNITED STATES,, 22 Cl. Ct. 345 (Cl. Ct. 1991)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice, ¶ 56.15[6], at 2427; cited in Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation . . .

FINE, Dr. V. v. AMERICAN SOLAR KING CORP. RANDALL, v. D. PARDO,, 919 F.2d 290 (5th Cir. 1990)

. . . Nissan Motor Co., 601 F.2d 139, 141 (4th Cir.1979); see also 6 Moore’s Federal Practice H 56.15(4) at . . .

FREEMAN, v. LAVENTHOL HORWATH,, 915 F.2d 193 (6th Cir. 1990)

. . . be tried; and in certain other situations.” 6 Moore, Taggart, & Wicker, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.15 . . .

UNITED STATES T. KARR, v. N. CASTLE, E. J. V. M., 746 F. Supp. 1231 (D. Del. 1990)

. . . Wicker, supra at § 56.15[6]. . . .

OGLALA SIOUX TRIBE OF PINE RIDGE INDIAN RESERVATION, v. UNITED STATES,, 21 Cl. Ct. 176 (Ct. Cl. 1990)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice, ¶ 56.15[6], at 2427; cited in Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation . . .

In GULPH WOODS CORPORATION, NASSAU SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, v. W. MILLER, W. S. Jr., 116 B.R. 423 (Bankr. E.D. La. 1990)

. . . Id. at 11 56.15[l.-0], at 57-201 to 56-202. . . .

In PHILLIPS PETROLEUM SECURITIES LITIGATION, 738 F. Supp. 825 (D. Del. 1990)

. . . Wicker, supra at § 56.15[6]. . . .

CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE COLVILLE RESERVATION, v. UNITED STATES,, 20 Cl. Ct. 31 (Cl. Ct. 1990)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice, ¶ 56.15[6], at 2427. . . .

CARR, v. TOWN OF DEWEY BEACH,, 730 F. Supp. 591 (D. Del. 1990)

. . . Wicker, Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.15[6] at 56-324 (1986). . . .

GAZIS, v. JOHN S. LATSIS USA INC. S. A. M T LADY EMA,, 729 F. Supp. 979 (S.D.N.Y. 1990)

. . . Wicker, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.15[5] (2d ed. 1988). . . .

F. WILLIS v. CABINDA GULF OIL COMPANY, 728 F. Supp. 328 (D. Del. 1990)

. . . Wicker, Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.15[6] (1988). . . . Wicker, supra at § 56.15[6]. . . .

In WONDER CORPORATION OF AMERICA, WONDER CORPORATION OF AMERICA v. CHASE MANHATTAN BANK, N. A. v. WONDER CORPORATION OF AMERICA,, 109 B.R. 18 (Bankr. D. Conn. 1989)

. . . The plaintiffs claim that they incurred attorneys’ fees of $6,811.75 for 56.15 hours spent opposing the . . . I find that the plaintiffs are entitled to be compensated for 20 of the 56.15 hours of legal services . . .

UNITED STATES v. NEW CASTLE COUNTY, C. ICI NEW CASTLE COUNTY, ICI v. AVON PRODUCTS, INC. NVF E. I. Co. FMC, 727 F. Supp. 854 (D. Del. 1989)

. . . Wicker, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.15[3] at 56-265 (1986) (“Moore’s Federal Practice”) (“While normally . . . Allen Products Co., Inc., 789 F.2d 230, 232 (3rd Cir.1986); 6 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.15[3] at . . . See Rule 56(c) and (e); see also 6 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.15[1.-0] at 56-201-04 (“In ruling on . . .

S. BROTKO C. M. A v. UNITED STATES, 727 F. Supp. 78 (D.R.I. 1989)

. . . Ronrico, 171 F.2d 653, 657 (1st Cir.1948); see also 6 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.15[1.-01] (2d ed.1988 . . .

In T. WALTON, G. ERNST, Jr. v. T. WALTON, G., 103 B.R. 151 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1989)

. . . Gas Corp., 321 U.S. 620, 627, 64 S.Ct. 724, 728, 88 L.Ed. 967 (1944); 6 Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.15 . . .

HEIDEMAN, v. PFL, INC., 710 F. Supp. 711 (W.D. Mo. 1989)

. . . Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 56.15[3] (2d ed. 1987). . . .

CORRUGATED PAPER PRODUCTS, INC. v. LONGVIEW FIBRE CO., 868 F.2d 908 (7th Cir. 1989)

. . . (footnotes omitted); see also 6 Moore & Wicker, Moore’s Federal Practice If 56.15[4], at 56-298 to -299 . . .

HENSON, v. THEZAN, 698 F. Supp. 150 (N.D. Ill. 1988)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice, § 56.15(4) (1985). . . .

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, v. CLAY COUNTY RURAL TELEPHONE, INC., 694 F. Supp. 563 (S.D. Ind. 1988)

. . . This burden is a stringent one. 6 Moore’s Federal Practice II 56.15[3], pp. 56-466; 10A Wright, Miller . . .

In C. PETERS d b a M. C. S. J. GROVES SONS COMPANY, v. C. PETERS, d b a M. C., 90 B.R. 588 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 1988)

. . . F.Supp. 191, 195 (N.D.N.Y.1983), aff'd., 732 F.2d 141 (1984); 6 MOORE’S FEDERAL PRACTICE, supra, at ¶ 56.15 . . . Klune, 178 F.2d 872, 874 (2d Cir.1949); 6 MOORE’s FEDERAL PRACTICE, supra, at ¶ 56.15[4], While not explicitly . . .

PINNEY DOCK AND TRANSPORT CO. v. PENN CENTRAL CORP. Co. N W Co. NWS, Co. Co. Co. CSX, 838 F.2d 1445 (6th Cir. 1988)

. . . another claim(s) that must be tried; and in certain other situations. 6 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.15 . . .

UNITED STATES v. ETTRICK WOOD PRODUCTS, INC. K. J. W. J. O., 774 F. Supp. 544 (W.D. Wis. 1988)

. . . See 6 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.15[6] (the issue is one addressed to the discretion of the court) . . .

SMITH, v. SENTRY INSURANCE, a G. G., 674 F. Supp. 1459 (N.D. Ga. 1987)

. . . Equifax, Inc., 762 F.2d 952, 956 (11th Cir.1985) (citing 6 Moore’s Federal Practice § 56.15[7]). . . .

A. SANTIAGO, v. GROUP BRASIL, INC., 830 F.2d 413 (1st Cir. 1987)

. . . adduce evidence suggesting a material factual dispute as to that issue. 6 Moore’s Federal Practice II 56.15 . . .

In T. HERBST, Jr. N. TAPPER, v. T. HERBST, Jr. T. Sr., 76 B.R. 882 (Bankr. D. Mass. 1987)

. . . Wicker, Moores Federal Practice ¶ 56.15[3] (2d ed. 1987). . . . Moore, supra, at ¶ 56.15[4]. . . .

E. CLUTE, v. DAVENPORT COMPANY,, 116 F.R.D. 599 (D. Conn. 1987)

. . . Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶56.15[6], at 56-613 (1987) (courts have reserved ruling on summary judgment . . .

ROGAN, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a L. A. P. D., 668 F. Supp. 1384 (C.D. Cal. 1987)

. . . Wicker, Moore's Federal Practice, para. 56.15, at 56-524 to 56-525 (2nd Ed.1948). . . . .

MORRIS v. PARKE, DAVIS COMPANY, a a a a, 667 F. Supp. 1332 (C.D. Cal. 1987)

. . . Wicker, Moore’s Federal Practice, para. 56.15[3], pg. 56-469 (2nd ed. 1948) (All inferences must be drawn . . .

L. TIPPENS, P. L. v. CELOTEX CORPORATION,, 805 F.2d 949 (11th Cir. 1986)

. . . affidavit and the two in conjunction may disclose an issue of credibility.” 6 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.15 . . .

INDIANA CONSTRUCTION CORP. v. CHICAGO TRIBUNE COMPANY,, 648 F. Supp. 1419 (N.D. Ind. 1986)

. . . Wright, Law of Federal Courts, § 99 (4th ed. 1983); 6 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 56.15 (2d ed. 1984) . . .

THIEL, v. FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS LOAN ASSOCIATION OF MARION,, 646 F. Supp. 592 (N.D. Ind. 1986)

. . . Wright, Law of Federal Courts, § 99 (4th ed. 1983); 6 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 56.15 (2d ed. 1984) . . .

TRANSPORT CAREERS, INC. v. NATIONAL HOME STUDY COUNCIL, 646 F. Supp. 1474 (N.D. Ind. 1986)

. . . Wright, Law of Federal Courts, § 99 (4th ed. 1983); 6 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 56.15 (2d ed. 1984) . . .

A. ROBINSON, v. MOSES C., 644 F. Supp. 975 (N.D. Ind. 1986)

. . . Wright, Law of Federal Courts, § 99 (4th ed. 1983); 6 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 56.15 (2d ed. 1983) . . .

PROFESSIONAL MANAGERS, INC. v. FAWER, BRIAN, HARDY ZATZKIS S. v. GEORGE F. BROWN SONS, INC. R., 799 F.2d 218 (5th Cir. 1986)

. . . amended, however, to include judgment in favor of Fremont and against Drury. . 6 Moore’s Federal Practice 56.15 . . . Armstrong Cork Corp., 777 F.2d 296 (5th Cir.1985). . 6 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.15[8] 56-642; Sartor . . .

CAL- FARM INSURANCE COMPANY, a v. UNITED STATES, 647 F. Supp. 1083 (E.D. Cal. 1986)

. . . Aetna Life Insurance Co., 139 F.2d 469, 472-73 (2d Cir.1943), 6 Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 56.15[3], . . .

CELOTEX CORP. v. CATRETT, ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF CATRETT, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986)

. . . Wicker, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.15[3] (2d ed. 1985) (hereinafter Moore) (citing cases). . . . The burden of persuasion imposed on a moving party by Rule 56 is a stringent one. 6 Moore ¶56.15[3], . . .

J. CARPENTER, v. CITY OF FORT WAYNE, INDIANA, BAALS, v. CITY OF FORT WAYNE, INDIANA, BLAIN, v. CITY OF FORT WAYNE, INDIANA,, 637 F. Supp. 889 (N.D. Ind. 1986)

. . . Wright, Law of Federal Courts, § 99 (4th ed. 1983); 6 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 56.15 (2d ed. 1984) . . .

PERSON v. KIEFFER, No. a a a W. W. J., 634 F. Supp. 892 (E.D. Pa. 1986)

. . . Wicker, supra, at II 56.15[3]. . . .

SCA SERVICES OF INDIANA, INC. v. M. THOMAS,, 634 F. Supp. 1355 (N.D. Ind. 1986)

. . . Wright, Law of Federal Courts, § 99 (4th ed. 1983); 6 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 56.15 (2d ed. 1984) . . .

MONARCH INSURANCE COMPANY OF OHIO, v. SIEGEL,, 634 F. Supp. 1252 (N.D. Ind. 1986)

. . . Wright, Law of Federal Courts, § 99 (4th ed. 1983); 6 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 56.15 (2d ed. 1984) . . .

NIPKOW KOBELT, INC. PARLIAMENT TEXTILE DIVISION, v. NORTH RIVER INSURANCE CO., 633 F. Supp. 437 (S.D.N.Y. 1986)

. . . Wicker, Moore’s Federal Practice If 56.15 [1.-0] (2d ed. 1983). . . .

In BREECE, W. WOODSON, v. TOM BELL LEASING,, 58 B.R. 379 (Bankr. N.D. Okla. 1986)

. . . ruling on its opponent’s motion for summary judgment, 6 Moore's Federal Practice (2d Ed.1982) Par. 56.15 . . .

K. CAMERON, v. FRANCES SLOCUM BANK TRUST COMPANY, J., 628 F. Supp. 966 (N.D. Ind. 1986)

. . . Wright, Law of Federal Courts, § 99 (4th ed. 1983); 6 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 56.15 (2d ed. 1983) . . .

J. ANDREWS, v. HI- WAY DISPATCH, INC., 631 F. Supp. 840 (N.D. Ind. 1986)

. . . Wright, Law of Federal Courts, § 99 (4th ed. 1983); 6 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 56.15 (2d ed. 1984) . . .

A. HULL, v. CENTRAL TRANSPORT, INC., 628 F. Supp. 784 (N.D. Ind. 1986)

. . . Wright, Law of Federal Courts, § 99 (4th ed. 1983); 6 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 56.15 (2d ed. 1984) . . .

FONTENOT, v. UPJOHN COMPANY,, 780 F.2d 1190 (5th Cir. 1986)

. . . Moore, Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 56.15[3], at 56-480-81 (1985); 10A C. Wright, A. Miller, & M. . . .

HORIZONS INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. BALDRIDGE,, 624 F. Supp. 1560 (E.D. Pa. 1986)

. . . Wicker, Moore’s Federal Practice 11 56.15[3] (2d ed. 1985). . . . Adickes, 398 U.S. at 157, 90 S.Ct. at 1608; 6 Moore’s Federal Practice, supra, at 11 56.15[3]. . . .

MONARCH INSURANCE COMPANY OF OHIO, v. SIEGEL L S, 625 F. Supp. 693 (N.D. Ind. 1986)

. . . Wright, Law of Federal Courts, § 99 (4th ed. 1983); 6 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 56.15 (2d ed. 1984) . . .

L. R. NIXON, v. D. ROSE,, 631 F. Supp. 794 (N.D. Ind. 1985)

. . . Wright, Law of Federal Courts, § 99 (4th ed. 1983); 6 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 56.15 (2d ed. 1984) . . .

UNITED STATES v. W. MURDOCK,, 627 F. Supp. 272 (N.D. Ind. 1985)

. . . Wright, Law of Federal Courts, § 99 (4th ed. 1983); 6 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 56.15 (2d ed. 1984) . . .

M. TINSLEY, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORP., 622 F. Supp. 1547 (N.D. Ind. 1985)

. . . Wright, Law of Federal Courts, § 99 (4th ed. 1983); 6 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 56.15 (2d ed. 1984) . . .

W. BRUTON, v. DIAMOND STATE TELEPHONE COMPANY, a, 623 F. Supp. 939 (D. Del. 1985)

. . . .1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1038, 97 S.Ct. 732, 50 L.Ed.2d 748 (1977); 6 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.15 . . .