Summary Judgment Cases Flashcards
White school teacher took six Negro students to public library and refused entry. Then they went to eat lunch at D’s store and D took the orders of the students but not the teacher. Students refused to eat unless P was served. Left the store and walked only a short distance until the police arrested the teacher for vagrancy they saw her walking before. Civil rights and conspiracy claims. Moved for summary judgment on conspiracy claim.
Supreme Court denied summary judgment on conspiracy count finding the movant D had not met its procedure burden of showing the absence of any disputed material fact = there was disputed material fact.
- respondent D failed to fulfill its initial burden a demonstrating what is a critical element in this aspect of the case—that there was no policeman in the store. If a policeman were present, might infer “preempting of minds” by policeman and Kress employee for conspiracy to deny Adickes service
- court rejected D’s argument because P did not satisfy rule 56E, D could get summary judgment
In a motion for summary judgment, the moving party has a burden of showing the absence of genuine issue as to any material fact
- Shows that summary judgment was historically disfavored, which was consistent with the broad principle of wanting disputes to be resolved on the merits whenever possible
Adickes v. S. H. Kress
He claims her husband died from exposure to asbestos manufactured and distributed by 15 corporations. One of the corporations D moved for summary judgment for P’s failure to produce evidence of proximate cause. Motion was originally denied, but on appeal judgment for D.
There is no express or implied requirement and rule 56 that the moving party needs to support its motion to dismiss with affidavits or similar materials negating the opponents claim.
- “we do not think that should be construed to mean the burden is on the moving party for summary judgment to produce evidence showing the absence of a genuine issue material fact, even with respect to an issue on which the non-moving party bears the burden of proof”
A party making emotion for summary judgment is not need to provide a affirmative evidence in the form of affidavits to support its motion
Celotex Corp v. Catrett (1986)
P nonprofit and its founder filed libel suit against the investor magazine, its CEO, alleging the published false statements that portrayed P’s as neo-Nazi, antisemitic, racist, and fascist.
- D provided affidavits of the sources of alleged, false materials and affirmed they were true—P responded showing one was a 12-year-old article saying D was a subject to an earlier suit settled in P’s favor
Supreme Court denied summary judgment, saying the court needs to consider the evidence a burden to decide if a reasonable jury could find for the nonmoving party. Here, district court should have considered D’s burden of meeting the clear & convincing standard standard proof malice.
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc (1986)
Ps group of American TV manufacturer alleged that group 21 Japanese manufactures and distributors conspire to fix prices in an effort to monopolize the American market
Supreme Court granted summary judgment, saying that antitrust law limited the range of permissible inferences that could be drawn in favor of nonmovant. Even if there’s evidence of conspiracy for every claim except for predatory pricing, they’re still not evidence of antitrust injury, which is essential for P to cover —> existence of material conspiracy
- “ respondents must establish that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether petitioners entered into an illegal conspiracy that caused respondents to suffer a cognizable injury”
when the claim is factually improbable, the non-movement must come forward with more persuasive evidence than usual to defeat summary judgment
Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp (1986)
P Harris suffered severe personal injuries when his vehicle engage in a police chase is force off the road by D a police officer. Ledge that successive force and violation of the fourth amendment. Moved for summary judgment, raising the defense of qualified immunity and issue on which you would bare the burden of proof at trial.
Supreme Court granted summary judgment. Videotape quite clearly contradicts the version of the story told by P and adopted by the appeals court (video reveals that P was also driving recklessly)
When opposing parties till different stories, one of which is blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it a court should not adopt that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for some judgment
- Looking for how reasonable jury wouldn’t further facts, not any jury
- Many people think the court took on the role of the jury here
Scott v. Harris (2007)
