Summary judgment
In the United States, the presiding judge generally must find there is "no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
In the absence of an award of summary judgment (or some type of pretrial dismissal), a lawsuit ordinarily proceeds to trial, which is an opportunity for litigants to contest evidence in an attempt to persuade the factfinder that they are saying "what really happened", and that, under the applicable law, they should prevail.
The necessary steps before a case can get to trial include disclosing documents to the opponent by discovery, showing the other side the evidence, often in the form of witness statements.
Typically this is stated as, when all the evidence likely to be put forward is such that no reasonable factfinder could disagree with the moving party, summary judgment is appropriate.
The moving party will also attempt to persuade the court that the undisputed material facts require judgment to be entered in its favor.
See Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 56; Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322–27 (1986) (clarifying the shifting allocations of burdens of production, persuasion, and proof at summary judgment); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 257 (1986) (applying heightened evidentiary standard of proof in libel action to judicial assessment of propriety of summary judgment); Matsushita Elec.
Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 596–98 (1986) (holding antitrust plaintiff with an inherently implausible claim was subject to dismissal at summary judgment).
But in either case, the moving party must produce evidence in support of each and every essential element of the claim or defense (as it would have to do at trial).
It is also possible for a plaintiff to seek summary judgment on a defendant's affirmative defense, but those types of motions are very rare.
Regardless of the type of summary judgment motion, there is a standardized rule(-like) framework for evaluating the first clause of Rule 56(a) ("no disputed genuine issue of material fact"), formulated as the following six core summary judgment tenets of review (SJTOR) (where the emphasized must indicate the lack of judicial discretion permitted): A party seeking summary judgment may refer to any evidence that would be admissible at trial, such as depositions (or deposition excerpts), party admissions, affidavits in support from witnesses, documents received during discovery (such as contracts, emails, letters, and certified government documents).
The pieces of evidence should be accompanied by a declaration from the moving party that all copies of the documents are true and correct, including deposition excerpts.
Each party may present to the court its view of applicable law by submitting a legal memorandum supporting, or opposing, the motion.
Deadline for filing of the dispositive motions in U.S. federal court system is set by judge in the initial discovery plan order.
There are also freely accessible web search engines to assist parties in finding court decisions that can be cited as an example or analogy to resolve similar questions of law.
[13] Google Scholar is the biggest database of full-text state and federal court decisions that can be accessed without charge.
[13] Summary judgment is awarded if the undisputed facts and the law make it clear that it would be impossible for one party to prevail if the matter were to proceed to trial.
In United States federal courts, a denial of summary judgment cannot be appealed until final resolution of the whole case, because of the requirements of 28 U.S.C.
There is currently a conflict between the different districts of the California Courts of Appeal as to the availability of summary adjudication; most superior courts tend to side with the narrowest interpretation of California Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, under which a party may make such a motion only with respect to an entire cause of action, an affirmative defense, or a punitive-damages claim.
If the plaintiff sets down the hearing date later than the minimum, he may require the defendant to serve a copy of the answering paper on him within the extended period.
[27] Ontario, after a study on the issues of access to justice,[28] reformed its rules in 2010 to extend the powers of motion judges and masters for ordering summary judgment, following the introduction of similar measures in Alberta and British Columbia.
[32][33][34] In Butera v. Chown, Cairns LLP, the Ontario Court of Appeal reports "the increase in summary judgment motions that have flowed since Hryniak" and that judges "are required to spend time hearing partial summary judgment motions and writing comprehensive reasons on an issue that does not dispose of the action.
[36] There is no specific provision in German law for summary judgment, though a judge may dismiss a clearly unfounded case on the merits after a hearing and without receiving evidence into the record.
