Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) , is a United States Supreme Court case articulating the standard for a trial court to grant summary judgment.
 Summary judgment will lie when, taking all factual inferences in the non-movant's favor, there exists no genuine issue as to a material fact such that the movant deserves judgment as a matter of law.
 Because appellate courts always recite "Liberty Lobby" when reviewing a trial court's grant of summary judgment, "Liberty Lobby" is the most quoted Supreme Court case.
Manuel v. Joliet, 580 U.S. ___ (2017), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that a criminal defendant may bring a claim under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution to challenge pretrial confinement.
 In a 6-2 majority opinion written by Justice Elena Kagan, the Court stated that "the Fourth Amendment governs a claim for unlawful pretrial detention even beyond the start of legal process".
 This decision reversed and remanded the judgment of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
 Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a dissenting opinion.
 Justice Thomas also joined a dissenting opinion by Justice Samuel Alito.
Rose & Frank Co v JR Crompton & Bros Ltd [1924] UKHL 2 is a leading decision on English contract law, regarding the intention to create legal relations in commercial arrangements.
 In the Court of Appeal, Atkin LJ delivered an important dissenting judgment which was upheld by the House of Lords.
Verizon Communications Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission was a 2014 U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit case vacating portions of the FCC Open Internet Order 2010 that the court determined could only be applied to common carriers.
 The court ruled that the FCC did not have the authority to impose the order in its entirety.
 Because the FCC had previously classified broadband providers under Title I of the Communications Act of 1934, the court ruled that the FCC had relinquished its right to regulate them like common carriers.
 The case was largely viewed as a loss for network neutrality supporters and a victory for the cable broadband industry.
 Of the three orders that make up the FCC Open Internet Order 2010, two were vacated (no blocking and no unreasonable discrimination) and one was upheld (transparency).
 Judge David S. Tatel wrote the opinion with Judge Judith Ann Wilson Rogers joining.
 Judge Laurence H. Silberman wrote a separate decision concurring in part and dissenting in part.
Candler v Crane, Christmas & Co [1951] 2 KB 164 is an English tort law case.
 In it, Denning LJ delivered an important dissenting judgment, arguing for a duty of care for negligent statements.
 This was later upheld in "Hedley Byrne v Heller & Partners Ltd" [1963] 2 All ER 575 by the House of Lords.
In law, a motion to set aside judgment is an application to overturn or set aside a court's judgment, verdict or other final ruling in a case.
 Such a motion is proposed by a party who is dissatisfied with the end result of a case.
 Motions may be made at any time after entry of judgment, and in some circumstances years after the case has been closed by the courts.
 Generally the motion cannot be based on grounds which were previously considered when deciding a motion for new trial or on an appeal of the judgment, thus the motion can only be granted in unusual circumstances, such as when the judgment was procured by fraud which could not have been discovered at the time of the trial, or if the court entering the judgment lacked the jurisdiction to do so.
Alfred Thompson "Tom" Denning, Baron Denning, (23 January 1899 – 5 March 1999) was an English lawyer and judge who has been called "the greatest judge of the century" and "probably the greatest English judge of modern times".
 Called to the bar in 1923 as a barrister he became a King's Counsel in 1938.
 Denning became a judge in 1944 with an appointment to the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division of the High Court of Justice and was made a Lord Justice of Appeal in 1948 after less than five years in the High Court.
 He became a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary in 1957 and after five years in the House of Lords returned to the Court of Appeal as Master of the Rolls in 1962, a position he held for twenty years.
 In retirement he wrote several books and continued to offer opinions on the state of the common law through his writing and his position in the House of Lords.
Chicago Life Insurance Co. v. Needles, 113 U.S. 574 (1885), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court.
 It involved the writ of error regarding a denial of a motion and final judgment rendered perpetually enjoining Chicago Life Ins.
 Co. from further prosecution of its business.
 From that judgment, a writ of error was prosecuted to the supreme court of the state, where, among other things, was assigned for error the refusal of the court of original jurisdiction to adjudge that the said statutes of Illinois were in violation of the Constitution of the United States.
 The judgment of the inferior court was in all things affirmed by the supreme court of the state, and from that judgment of affirmance the present writ of error is prosecuted.
Commissioner v. Sunnen, 333 U.S. 591 (1948), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1948 in which the Court outlined the scope of collateral estoppel or estoppel by judgment in determinations of federal tax liability.
 This was important because a single controversial circumstance may have a bearing on income tax liability for several years.
 Res judicata, as part of the doctrine of judicial finality, protects a taxpayer's tax liability for a given year once the taxpayer wins a judgment in court.
 The judgment is controlling not only controlling with regard to the issues litigated but also with any issues that "could have" been raised if they would have affected the determination of tax liability for the year.
 However, of course, a single controversial circumstance may have a bearing on income tax liability for several years, and if a judgment fixes liability for one of the years, res judiciary forecloses the reopening of only that year's liability.
 But the related doctrine of collateral estoppel prevents relitigation of issues that were in fact raised and decided in the earlier litigation, even when they arise in a new cause of action, such as a dispute as to liability for a later year.
International Shipping Co (Pty) Ltd v Bentley is an important case in South African law.
 It was heard in the Appellate Division on 25 and 26 September 1989, with judgment handed down on 10 November.
 The presiding officers were Corbett CJ, Botha JA, Hefer JA, Smalberger JA and Friedman AJA.
 The case is especially important in the law of delict, in the area of causation and on the question of the remoteness of damages.
 An auditor was sued by a financing company for loss caused by negligent misstatements contained in a report by the auditor of a group of companies.
 This report was misleading: It did not give an accurate picture of the bleak financial situation of the group for which the company was providing financial facilities.
 The court found that the auditor had acted negligently and unlawfully, and so established factual causation.
 On appeal, however, it was held that the company's loss was too remote for the auditor to be held liable.
 The judgment set out the factors relevant to determining whether or not a loss is too remote.

Question: What is the nationality of the judge who made an important dissenting judgment in the case of Candler v Crane, Christmas & Co.?
Answer: English