iLaw Dictionary			USAConstitution Law
						California			BankruptcyCode.US
						Law Dictionary			iBusiness Center.US
						Federal Summary Judgment Law			United States Law.US

A Legal and Business Portal-Home

iLaw Dictionary
California
Law Dictionary
Federal Summary Judgment Law
(Aguilar)

 

Federal Summary Judgment Law
(Aguilar)
 

Under federal summary judgment law, which is similar to ours [California], any party to an action, whether plaintiff or defendant, “may . .  move” the court “for a summary judgment in [his] favor” on a claim (i.e., cause of action) or defense.  (Fed. Rules Civ.Proc., rule 56(a) [plaintiff], 28 U.S.C.; id., rule 56(b) [defendant].)  The court must “render[]” the “judgment sought” “forthwith” “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show” that “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact” (id., rule 56(c)) — that is, there is no issue requiring a trial as to any fact that is necessary under the pleadings and, ultimately, the law (see Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., supra, 477 U.S. at pp. 248–249) — and that the “moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law” (Fed. Rules Civ.Proc., rule 56(c), 28 U.S.C.). 

The moving party may “support[]” the motion with evidence in the form of “affidavits” (id., rule 56(a) [plaintiff]; id., rule 56(b) [defendant]) and also with the “pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file” (id., rule 56(c); see id., rule 56(e)).  Likewise, any “adverse party” may “oppos[e]” the motion with “affidavits” and also with the “pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file.”  (Id., rule 56(c); see id., rule 56(e).)  An adverse party who chooses to oppose the motion must be allowed a reasonable opportunity to do so.  (See id., rule 56(f).)  When the moving party so makes and supports the motion, the opposing party “may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of” his “pleading,” but his “response” (id., rule 56(e)), by “affidavits” (ibid.) or by “depositions, answers to interrogatories, [or] admissions on file” (id., rule 56(c)), “must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial” (id., rule 56(e)).  In ruling on the motion, the court must consider all of the evidence and all of the inferences reasonably drawn therefrom (see Matsushita Elec. Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio, supra, 475 U.S. at p. 587), and must view such evidence (e.g., Behrens v. Pelletier (1996) 516 U.S. 299, 309; Adickes v. Kress & Co. (1970) 398 U.S. 144, 157) and such inferences (e.g., Hunt v. Cromartie (1999) 526 U.S. 541, 552; United States v. Diebold, Inc. (1962) 369 U.S. 654, 655 (by the court)), in the light most favorable to the opposing party. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.)  
 

=====================================================


(Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.)  
Brizuela v. Calfarm Ins. 3/3/04 CA2/5 B160875    
Long v. Walt Disney Co. B164750 March 09 2004 
Purpose of Summary Judgment-(Aguilar)   
Purpose of Summary Judgment-Brizuela
 

Thomas - Legislative Information on the Internet |Check Your Credit Score
Directory of Medical Dictionaries: Table of Contents | California Injury (Torts) Law
USA Entertainment.US | FederalCriminalProcedure.Com |United Statea News
FederalCriminalProcedure.Com | iLaw Dictionary.Com | Library of Congress
United States Law Consumer Law TITLE PAGE | USA Entertainment.US
iBusiness Center.US | United States Law: Constitutional Law: Constitutions of  The World: TITLE PAGE
California Contracts Law.Com | California Injury (Torts) Law
Phone Directories From Around the World New | California Law Revision Commission 
California Civil Procedure.Com | Federal Civil Procedure.Com