|
|
Summary Judgment is a procedural technique utilized during civil litigation to quickly and efficiently dissolve a case without a trial. It is sometimes used when there is no substantial dispute as to material facts of a case, plus a party deserves judgment as a matter of law.
Any party can move for summary judgment, and it is not unusual for both parties to desire such. A judge might also determine on his own initiative that summary judgment is called for.
Dissimilar to pretrial motions to dismiss, info such as admissions, depositions, interrogatories, and affidavits may be considered on a motion for summary judgment.
Usually a court will hold oral arguments on a summary judgment motion, though they might choose to proceed with the motion on the briefs of parties involved and supporting documentation alone.
The purpose of summary judgment is to avoid a needless trial, and such might simplify a trial, like when partial summary judgment does away with various claims or issues. For instance, a court could grant summary judgment in a personal injury case concerning liability, in which situation a trial would yet be required to determine amount of damages.
A least two factors must be considered before summary judgment is duly allowed, one of which is that there should be no verifiably authentic issues of material fact, and the other is that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
A genuine issues infers that certain verifiable facts are disputed, and frequently a party opposing summary judgment must put forth evidence which contradicts the moving party's version of alleged facts. Not only that, but the facts in dispute have to be central in the case, because superfluous or irrelevant considerations will not overcome a motion for summary judgment.
Added to that, the law applied to non-disputed facts in a case mandate judgment for the moving party, and summary judgment in no way implies that a judge decides which party prevails at trial, nor does he ascertain the validity or truthfulness of witnesses. Instead, such is utilized when no factual inquisitations are present for him or his jury to decide.
It behooves the moving party to reveal the propriety of summary judgment even in situations where the moving party would not have burden of proof at trial, and courts typically evaluate evidence offered with the motion as to what is most advantageous to the opposing party.
In scenarios which the opposing party bears the burden of proof at trial, they might acquire summary judgment by exhibitions that the opposing party has less than scant evidence or that that evidence is completely inadequate to substantiate burden of proof at trial.
Requirements differ in jurisdictions for opposing a summary judgment motion.
Federal rule of Civil Procedure 56 governs applicability of summary judgment in federal proceedings, in contrast to each State having their own statutes. In some states, all that is necessary is if the party's opposition to the motion simply calls the court's attention to discrepancies in the pleadings and the movant's propositions without presenting more evidence. That approach infrequently results in a court bestowing summary judgment, but, conversely, other jurisdictions, some federal, do not allow a party opposing summary judgment to rest solely on the pleadings. Whenever the movant has provided initial burden of showing absence of genuine issue of material fact, the opposing party is compelled to introduce evidence negating the movant's presumptions.