Opinion ID: 1665643
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: summary judgment practice in federal courts

Text: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c), which corresponds to Kentucky CR 56.03, similarly states that a summary judgment is proper 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 and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. In the past, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have consistently authorized motions for summary judgment upon the proper showing of the lack of a genuine triable issue of material fact. Nevertheless, it is equally clear that prior to 1986 federal courts were generally reluctant to grant motions for summary judgment and in most instances denied them if there was even the slightest doubt as to an issue of fact. [6] Only where the record, taken as a whole, could not lead a reasonable, rational trier of fact to return a verdict for the nonmoving party, was there considered to be no genuine issue for trial, and thus that a summary judgment was warranted. First National Bank of Arizona v. Cities Service Co., 391 U.S. 253, 88 S.Ct. 1575, 20 L.Ed.2d 569 (1968). During the 1985-86 term, however, the United States Supreme Court issued three opinions which have had a profound effect on summary judgment practice in federal courts and encourage greater use of summary judgments to dispose of litigation. [7] These three cases, as noted, are Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, supra ; Anderson v. Liberty Lobby Inc., supra ; and Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., supra . While it is not necessary or required that we discuss each one of these cases specifically, it is comparatively worth noting some of the general principles concerning summary judgments announced in those cases: [8] (1) The movant must meet the initial burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact as to an essential element of the non-movant's case. See, Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322, 106 S.Ct. at 2552, 2553. (2) This burden may be met by pointing out to the court that the respondent, having had sufficient opportunity for discovery, has no evidence to support an essential element of his or her case. See, Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322, 106 S.Ct. at 2552. (3) A complete failure of proof by a nonmovant on an essential element, renders all other facts immaterial and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See, Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323, 106 S.Ct. at 2552. (4) Not every issue of fact or conflicting inference presents a genuine issue of material fact that requires denial of a summary judgment motion. See, Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247, 106 S.Ct. at 2510. (5) In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, a court should apply a federal directed verdict standard. The inquiry on a summary judgment motion or a directed verdict motion is the same: whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law. See, Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252, 106 S.Ct. at 2512. See also, Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323, 106 S.Ct. at 2552, 2553; Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586, 587, 106 S.Ct. at 1356. (6) As on federal directed verdict motions, the respondent must adduce more than a scintilla of evidence to overcome the motion; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the respondent. See, Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252, 106 S.Ct. at 2512. (7) The respondent cannot rely on the hope that the trier of fact will disbelieve the movant's denial of a disputed fact, but must present affirmative evidence in order to defeat a properly supported motion for summary judgment. See, Anderson, 477 U.S. at 257, 106 S.Ct. at 2514. See also, Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586, 587, 106 S.Ct. at 1356. (8) If, after a sufficient time for discovery, the opposing party is unable to demonstrate that he can produce sufficient evidence to withstand a directed verdict motion, summary judgment is appropriate. See, Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322, 106 S.Ct. at 2552. The three United States Supreme Court decisions are revolutionizing summary judgment practice in federal courts by allowing and encouraging summary judgment to be more readily granted. [9]