Court Opinion

ID: 9691903
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 15:23:28.275533+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:27.764403
License: Public Domain

SAUFLEY, C.J.,
with whom CLIFFORD, J., joins, concurring.
[¶ 31] I join the majority opinion of the Court in both analysis and conclusion and write separately in concurrence to address the focal point of both the majority and dissenting opinions.
[¶ 32] Simply put, it is the responsibility of the parties to admit, deny, or qualify the facts set forth in a statement of material facts by reference to each numbered paragraph, and to provide appropriate record citations for each denial or qualification. In this case, Stanley did not do so. The dissent points to the morass created by both parties’ multiple and, at times, lengthy statements of fact and determines that Stanley should not be held to the requirement of the rule. The trial court, in a thorough and well-reasoned review, and the majority of this Court say that he should.
[¶ 33] The summary judgment rules are straightforward and intended to allow an immediate identification of legitimate factual disputes. It is the parties, not the judge, who have the responsibility to respond to their opponents’ statements of fact directly, in an organized manner, and with record support. This allocation of responsibility is reasonable and, contrary to the conclusion of the dissent, does not signal a return to common law pleading or the end of jury trials.
[¶ 34] Thus, I concur in the opinion of the Court.