Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): that one party must prevail as a matter of law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251-52, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); Stone v. Autoliv ASP, Inc., 210 F.3d 1132, 1136 (10th Cir.2000). Once the moving party meets its initial burden of demonstrating an absence of a genuine dispute of material fact, the burden then shifts to the non-moving party to move beyond the pleadings and to designate evidence which demonstrates the existence of a genuine dispute of material fact to be resolved at trial. See 1-800-Contacts, Inc. v. Lens.com, Inc., 722 F.3d 1229, 1242 (10th Cir.2013) (citation omitted). A fact is “material” be considered when ruling on a motion for summary judgment. Jaramillo v. Colo. Judicial Dep't, 427 F.3d 1303, 1314 (10th Cir.2005) (citation omitted) (<HOLDING>); World of Sleep, Inc. v. La-Z-Boy Chair Co., 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding hearsay evidence and evidence that violated the best evidence rule in deciding a summary judgment motion (B) holding that hearsay ev idence is not acceptable in opposing a summary judgment motion (C) holding that hearsay in affidavit which would be inadmissible in evidence at trial could not be considered on motion for summary judgment (D) holding that hearsay evidence is not acceptable in opposing a summary judgment motion (E) holding that a grant of summary judgment in favor of one party creates a final judgment allowing appellate review of denial of opposing partys summary judgment motion
Output (English): holding that hearsay ev idence is not acceptable in opposing a summary judgment motion