Opinion ID: 1478239
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the applicable legal standard

Text: In reviewing an order granting or denying a motion for summary judgment, this court appl[ies] the same standard as the trial court in considering the motion for summary judgment. Read v. Legg, 493 A.2d 1013, 1016 (D.C.1985) (footnote omitted) (citing Holland v. Hannan, 456 A.2d 807, 814 (D.C.1983)). The moving party must establish that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that he or she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Super.Ct.Civ.R. 56(c). On appeal, this court must conduct an independent review of the record ... [to] determine whether any relevant factual issues exist by examining and taking into account the pleadings, depositions, and admissions along with any affidavits on file, ... construing such material in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Graff v. Malawer, 592 A.2d 1038, 1040 (D.C.1991) (citations omitted). The test for deciding a motion for summary judgment is essentially the same as that for a motion for a directed verdict. Beard v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 587 A.2d 195, 199 (D.C.1991). Moreover, [i]n limited circumstances, where the parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment and the motions are based on the same material facts and address the same legal issues, the filing of the cross-motions may evidence the absence of any genuine issue of material fact. Read, supra, 493 A.2d at 1016 (citing Holland, supra, 456 A.2d at 814 n. 9). When there is no dispute as to any material fact, the issue on appeal is whether the movant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Basch v. George Washington Univ., 370 A.2d 1364, 1366, (D.C.1977). In the present case, the facts are almost entirely undisputed. The questions presented to us are thus questions of law, and we therefore review the trial judge's disposition of them de novo.