# Anthony Dash v. Floyd Mayweather, Jr.

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · September 26, 2013 · 731 F.3d 303

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9521758

## Case

- **Full name:** Anthony Lawrence DASH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Floyd MAYWEATHER, Jr., an Individual; Mayweather Promotions; Mayweather Promotions LLC, A/K/A Mayweather Promtions LLC; Philthy Rich Records Inc.; World Wrestling Entertainment Inc., Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** September 26, 2013
- **Citations:** 731 F.3d 303; 108 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1249; 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 19675; 2013 WL 5365967
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Davis
- **Judges:** Davis, Thacker, Eastern, Virginia
- **Cited by:** 476 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9521758

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that the “nonmoving party must rely on more than conclusory allegations, mere speculation, the building of one inference upon another, or the mere existence of a ‘scintilla of evidence’ to oppose summary judgment.”
- stating that at summary judgment, a nonmoving party must rely on “more than conclusory allegations, mere speculation, the building of one inference upon another, or the mere existence of a scintilla of evidence”
- observing that “in some cases, like Bonner, the infringement will form such a significant aspect of the product generating the claimed revenues that no further evidence will be required to establish that those revenues were causally linked to the infringement”
- noting that as the nonmoving party rebutting the lack of evidence in the record, a plaintiff “must rely on more than conclusory allegations, mere speculation, the building of one inference upon another, or the mere existence of a scintilla of evidence.”
- finding expert report could not “create a genuine issue of material fact through mere speculation or the building of one inference upon another” (quoting Stone v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 105 F.3d 188, 191 (4th Cir. 1997))

## Opinion text

DAVIS, Circuit Judge,
concurring in the judgment:
I concur in the judgment.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9521758. Public record. Not legal advice.