Contents 1 Specific jurisdictions 1.1 United States 1.1.1 State-court practice 1.1.2 Filing and privacy 1.2 England and Wales 1.3 Canada 2 See also 3 References 4 External links

Specific jurisdictions[edit] United States[edit] In American legal practice, summary judgment can be awarded by the court before trial, effectively holding that no trial will be necessary. At the federal level, a summary-judgment motion in United States District Court is governed by Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Other pretrial motions, such as a "motion for judgment on the pleadings" or a "motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted," can be converted by the judge to summary-judgment motions if matters outside the pleadings are presented to – and not excluded by – the trial-court judge. A party seeking summary judgment (or making any other motion) is called the movant (usually, this is defendant); the opposing party is the nonmovant (usually, plaintiff). Per Rule 56(a), issuance of summary judgment can be based only upon the court's finding that, both: there exists no disputed genuine issue of material fact between the parties requiring a trial to resolve; and in applying the law to the (undisputed) facts, one party is clearly entitled by law to judgment. Here: An issue of (purported) fact is a (potential) event that the factfinder at trial (jury, or judge in the case of a bench trial) is charged with crediting (determining what "really happened," according to the credibility of the witnesses/experts/etc. at trial). A disputed issue/fact means movant claims one thing, while nonmovant makes a different (conflicting/contradictory) claim. A genuine issue/fact is one that can be resolved in favor by either party, by some rational/reasonable factfinder. A material issue/fact is one that has the potential of affecting the outcome of the case/issue in dispute (judgment in favor of one party over the other). Of cardinal importance here is that, by design: the judge had no discretion at summary judgment time: all fact-finding is done by the jury at trial, not by the judge at summary judgment (the judge only looks for the existence of disputed "facts" to be "found"). Summary judgment in the United States applies only in civil cases. It does not apply to criminal cases to obtain a pretrial judgment of conviction or acquittal, in part because a criminal defendant has a constitutional right to a jury trial.[1] Some federal and state-court judges publish general guidelines and sample summary-judgment forms.[2][3][4][5] According to Federal Judicial Center research, summary-judgment motions are filed in 17% of federal cases.[6] Since almost two-thirds of federal civil cases are dismissed or settled, over half of the cases that reach the final judgment stage were disposed of via summary judgment.[7] 71% of summary-judgment motions were filed by defendants, 26% by plaintiffs.[6] Out of these, 36% of the motions were denied, and 64% were granted in whole or in part.[6] Civil rights cases concluded in U.S. district courts, by disposition, 1990–2006.[7] From a tactical perspective, there are two basic types of summary-judgment motions. One requires a full evidentiary presentation, and the other requires only a more limited, targeted one. First, a plaintiff may seek summary judgment on any cause of action, and similarly, a defendant may seek summary judgment in its favor on any affirmative defense. But in either case, the moving party must produce evidence in support of each and every essential element of the claim or defense (as it would have to do at trial). To be successful, this type of summary-judgment motion must be drafted as a written preview of a party's entire case-in-chief (that it would put before the finder of fact at trial) because all parts of an entire claim or defense are at issue. Second, a different and very common tactic is where a defendant seeks summary judgment on a plaintiff's cause of action. The key difference is that in this latter situation, the defendant need only attack one essential element of the plaintiff's claim. A finding that the plaintiff cannot prove one essential element of its claim necessarily renders all other elements immaterial and results in summary judgment for the defendant. So these motions tend to be precisely targeted to the weakest points of the plaintiff's case. It is also possible for a plaintiff to seek summary judgment on a defendant's affirmative defense, but those types of motions are very rare. Regardless of the type of summary judgment motion, there is a standardized rule(-like) framework for evaluating the first clause of Rule 56(a) (“no disputed genuine issue of material fact"), formulated as the following six core summary judgment tenets of review (SJTOR) (where the emphasized must indicate the lack of judicial discretion permitted): All-Issues/Facts: All ("each/every", not just "some") factual issues must be considered/discussed—especially, all disputed/contested genuine issues of material facts. Whole-Record: The entire record ("whole set/totality of circumstances", not just a "subset"), must be considered, regarding each/every issue. In-Context: All issues must be considered in holistic relationship with one another, within the whole-record environment (not "context-free line-by-line isolation"); patterns may emerge. Nonmovant-Trumps-Movant: Tenets 1–3 must be interpreted/construed in the light most favorable/advantageous to nonmovant (never to movant), and belief/credit awarded thereto (as to whether a "dispute exists", not as to "who wins the dispute", though either interpretation unambiguously satisfies the only question at Summary Judgment, which is whether or not a "dispute exists"). All-Inferences: All reasonable/justifiable logical/legal inferences/implications from tenets 1–3 must also be interpreted favorably to nonmovant, and credit awarded thereto. Light-Burden: For tenets 4–5, nonmovant bears the undemanding requirement of production only of favorable facts (and law)—i.e., de minimus proof/persuasion. All fact/credibility-finding must be reserved for the jury at trial, none for the judge at summary judgment. A party seeking summary judgment may refer to any evidence that would be admissible at trial, such as depositions (or deposition excerpts), party admissions, affidavits in support from witnesses, documents received during discovery (such as contracts, emails, letters, and certified government documents). The evidences should be accompanied by a declaration from the moving party that all copies of the documents are true and correct, including deposition excerpts. Each party may present to the court its view of applicable law by submitting a legal memorandum supporting, or opposing, the motion. The opposing party may also file its own summary-judgment motion (called a "cross-motion"), if deadline still allows. The court may allow for oral argument of the lawyers, generally where the judge wishes to question the lawyers on issues in the case. Deadline for filing of the dispositive motions in U.S. federal court system is set by judge in the initial discovery plan order. If a party wants to file a motion or a cross-motion for summary judgment after the deadline, it needs to ask for leave of court. Normally, federal judges require valid reasons to alter case-management deadlines and only do so with reluctance. There are also freely accessible web search engines to assist parties in finding court decisions that can be cited as an example or analogy to resolve similar questions of law.[8] Google Scholar is the biggest database of full-text state and federal court decisions that can be accessed without charge.[8][9] These web search engines often allow one to select specific state courts to search.[8] Summary judgment is awarded if the undisputed facts and the law make it clear that it would be impossible for one party to prevail if the matter were to proceed to trial. The court must consider all designated evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the summary-judgment motion. If a trial could result in the jury (or judge in a bench trial) deciding in favor of the party opposing the motion, then summary judgment is inappropriate. A decision granting summary judgment can be appealed without delay. A decision denying summary judgment ordinarily cannot be immediately appealed; instead, the case continues on its normal course. In United States federal courts, a denial of summary judgment cannot be appealed until final resolution of the whole case, because of the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (the final judgment rule). To defeat a summary-judgment motion, the non-moving party only has to show substantial evidence that a dispute of material facts exists, regardless of the strength of that evidence. For example, even if the moving side can produce the testimony of "a dozen bishops", and the non-moving side only has the testimony of a known liar, then summary judgment is not appropriate. Deciding on the relative credibility of witnesses is a question for the factfinder at trial. Where appropriate, a court may award judgment summarily upon fewer than all claims. This is known as "partial summary judgment". It is not uncommon for summary judgments of lower U.S. courts in complex cases to be overturned on appeal. A grant of summary judgment is reviewed "de novo" (meaning, without deference to the views of the trial judge) both as to the determination that there is no remaining genuine issue of material fact and that the prevailing party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. State-court practice[edit] Summary-judgment practice in most states is similar to federal practice, though with minor differences. For example, the U.S. state of California requires the moving party to actually present evidence rather than merely refer to evidence. See Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 25 Cal. 4th 826 (2001). This is done by attaching relevant documents and by summarizing all relevant factual points within those documents in a separate statement of facts. In turn, the record to be reviewed by the judge can be very large; for example, the Aguilar case involved a record of about 18,400 pages. Also, California uses the term "summary adjudication" instead of "partial summary judgment". The California view is that the latter term is an oxymoron since a judgment is supposed to be final (in the sense of completely disposing of the case). There is currently a conflict between the different districts of the California Courts of Appeal as to the availability of summary adjudication; most superior courts tend to side with the narrowest interpretation of California Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, under which a party may make such a motion only with respect to an entire cause of action, an affirmative defense, or a punitive-damages claim. There is also language in section 437c about "issues of duty," but some Courts of Appeal panels have given that phrase an extremely narrow interpretation due to evidence that the California State Legislature has been trying to stop the state courts from engaging in the piecemeal adjudication of individual issues. In New York there is the procedure of summary judgment in lieu of complaint CPLR § 3213. This allows a plaintiff in an action based on an instrument to pay money only or ajudgement to file a motion for summary judgment and supporting papers with the summons instead of a complaint. The motion must be noted to be heard on the date the defendant is required to appear under CPLR 320(a). If the plaintiff sets down the hearing date later than the minimum, he may require the defendant to serve a copy of the answering paper on him within the extended period. If the motion is denied the moving and answering papers shall be deemed the complaint and answer, respectively, unless the court orders other wise. Filing and privacy[edit] See also: Motion (legal) § Motion for summary judgment Many U.S. district courts have developed their own requirements included in local rules for filing summary-judgment motions.[10] Local rules can set limits on the number of pages, explain if a separate factual statement is required, whether it is acceptable to combine motion petition with a response, and if a judge needs an additional copy of the documents (called a "judge's copy"), etc.[11][12] Local Rules can define page-layout elements like: margins, text font/size, distance between lines, mandatory footer text, page numbering, and provide directions on how the pages need to be bound together – i.e., acceptable fasteners, number and location of fastening holes, etc.[11][12][13] If the filed motion does not comply with the local rules, then the judge can choose to strike the motion completely, or order the party to re-file its motion, or grant a special exception to the local rules. Summary-judgment motions, like many other court filings, are a matter of public record. So under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 5.2, sensitive text like Social Security number, Taxpayer Identification Number, birthday, bank accounts and children's names, should be redacted from the summary-judgment motion and accompanying exhibits.[14] The redacted text can be erased with black-out or white-out, and the page should have an indication that it was redacted – most often by stamping the word "redacted" on the bottom. Alternately, the filing party may ask the court's permission to file some exhibits completely under seal. A minor's name of the petitions should be replaced with initials.[14] A person making a redacted filing can file an unredacted copy under seal, or the court can choose to order later that an additional filing be made under seal without redaction.[14] Copies of both redacted and unredacted documents filed with court should be provided to the other parties in the case. England and Wales[edit] In England and Wales, Part 24[15] of the Civil Procedure Rules governs the award of summary judgment. Summary judgment is available in all claims against both the defendant and claimant with the following exceptions. There may be no summary judgment in possession proceedings against a mortgagor or a person holding over after the end of his tenancy whose occupancy is protected within the meaning of the Rent Act 1977 or the Housing Act 1988. There may be no summary judgment against a defendant in admiralty proceedings in rem. Canada[edit] Summary judgment procedures were broadened in Canadian courts in the 1980s. With the exception of Quebec (which has its own procedural device for disposing of abusive claims summarily), all provinces feature a summary judgment mechanism in their respective rules of civil procedure.[16] Ontario, after a study on the issues of access to justice,[17] reformed its rules in 2010 to extend the powers of motion judges and masters for ordering summary judgment, following the introduction of similar measures in Alberta and British Columbia.[18] In 2014, the Supreme Court of Canada encouraged greater use of the procedure by the courts in its ruling in Hryniak v. Mauldin.

See also[edit] Dispositive motion

References[edit] ^ Leonetti, Carrie (Spring 2011). "When the Emperor Has No Clothes: A Proposal for Defensive Summary Judgment in Criminal Cases". Southern California Law Review. 84.  ^ "AN OVERVIEW OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT PRACTICE" (PDF).  ^ "Sample Motion for Summary Judgment" (PDF).  ^ "Your First Motion for Summary Judgment from The Court's Perspective" (PDF).  ^ "How to Write a Motion for Summary Judgment".  ^ a b c "Report on Summary Judgment Practice".  ^ a b "Civil rights cases concluded in U.S. district courts, by disposition, 1990–2006" (PDF).  ^ a b c "Google Scholar".  ^ "An Examination of Citation Counts in a New Scholarly Communication Environment".  ^ "LOCAL COURT RULES".  ^ a b "Local Rules of U.S. District Court, District of Indiana" (PDF).  ^ a b "Local Rules of U.S. District Court, District of Oklahoma" (PDF).  ^ "Local Rules of U.S. District Court, District of Oregon".  ^ a b c "Federal Rules of Civil Procedure".  ^ Part 24 ^ Janet Walker (2012). "Summary Judgment Has its Day in Court" (PDF). Queen's Law Journal. Queen's University. 37 (2): 693–724. , at 696 ^ Osborne, Coulter A. (November 2007). Civil Justice Reform Project: Summary of Findings & Recommendations (PDF). Toronto: Ministry of the Attorney General (Ontario). pp. 39–43. ISBN 978-1-4249-5130-7.  ^ Craig Ferris (13 February 2011). "British Columbia and Alberta New Rules of Civil Procedure – Initial Impressions". Lawson Lundell LLP. 

External links[edit] Los Angeles County Bar Association article comparing Federal Law and California summary judgment burden shifting differences Retrieved from "" Categories: Judgment (law)

Navigation menu Personal tools Not logged inTalkContributionsCreate accountLog in Namespaces ArticleTalk Variants Views ReadEditView history More Search Navigation Main pageContentsFeatured contentCurrent eventsRandom articleDonate to WikipediaWikipedia store Interaction HelpAbout WikipediaCommunity portalRecent changesContact page Tools What links hereRelated changesUpload fileSpecial pagesPermanent linkPage informationWikidata itemCite this page Print/export Create a bookDownload as PDFPrintable version Languages Français한국어ItalianoPortuguês Edit links This page was last edited on 24 February 2018, at 19:03. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization. Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers Contact Wikipedia Developers Cookie statement Mobile view (window.RLQ=window.RLQ||[]).push(function(){mw.config.set({"wgPageParseReport":{"limitreport":{"cputime":"0.240","walltime":"0.310","ppvisitednodes":{"value":1232,"limit":1000000},"ppgeneratednodes":{"value":0,"limit":1500000},"postexpandincludesize":{"value":40703,"limit":2097152},"templateargumentsize":{"value":237,"limit":2097152},"expansiondepth":{"value":7,"limit":40},"expensivefunctioncount":{"value":0,"limit":500},"entityaccesscount":{"value":0,"limit":400},"timingprofile":["100.00% 266.115 1 -total"," 58.81% 156.499 1 Template:Reflist"," 22.70% 60.407 14 Template:Cite_web"," 20.02% 53.266 1 Template:Civil_procedure_(United_States)"," 17.28% 45.989 2 Template:Cite_journal"," 4.55% 12.117 5 Template:Hlist"," 3.81% 10.130 1 Template:See_also"," 3.78% 10.053 3 Template:Ussc"," 3.76% 10.011 5 Template:Startflatlist"," 3.59% 9.565 2 Template:UnitedStatesCode"]},"scribunto":{"limitreport-timeusage":{"value":"0.105","limit":"10.000"},"limitreport-memusage":{"value":3960056,"limit":52428800}},"cachereport":{"origin":"mw1276","timestamp":"20180224190258","ttl":1900800,"transientcontent":false}}});});(window.RLQ=window.RLQ||[]).push(function(){mw.config.set({"wgBackendResponseTime":89,"wgHostname":"mw1266"});});

Summary_judgment - Photos and All Basic Informations

Summary_judgment More Links

Civil Procedure In The United StatesFederal Rules Of Civil ProcedureDoctrines Of Civil ProcedureJurisdictionSubject-matter JurisdictionFederal-question JurisdictionDiversity JurisdictionSupplemental JurisdictionRemoval JurisdictionPersonal JurisdictionIn PersonamIn Rem JurisdictionQuasi In Rem JurisdictionVenue (law)Change Of VenueForum Non ConveniensPleadingComplaintCause Of ActionCase Information StatementClass ActionClass Action Fairness Act Of 2005DemurrerAnswer (law)Affirmative DefenseReply (legal Term)CounterclaimCrossclaimJoinderIndispensable PartyImpleaderInterpleaderIntervention (law)Motion (legal)LawsuitDiscovery (law)Initial Conference (law)InterrogatoriesDeposition (law)Request For AdmissionsRequest For ProductionDefault JudgmentVoluntary DismissalInvoluntary DismissalSettlement (litigation)TrialParty (law)PlaintiffDefendantPro Se Legal RepresentationJuryVoir DireLegal Burden Of ProofJudgment (law)Judgment As A Matter Of LawRenewed JMOLJudgment Notwithstanding VerdictMotion To Set Aside JudgmentTrial De NovoLegal RemedyInjunctionDamagesAttorney's FeeAmerican Rule (attorney's Fees)English Rule (attorney's Fees)Declaratory JudgmentAppealMandamusCertiorariTemplate:Civil Procedure (United States)Template Talk:Civil Procedure (United States)LawCourtTrial (law)Judgment (law)Common-lawJury NullificationOfficers Of The CourtTrial (law)Discovery (law)Witness StatementTestimonyDocumentary EvidenceJudgment As A Matter Of LawFederal Rules Of Civil ProcedureCelotex Corp. V. CatrettList Of United States Supreme Court Cases, Volume 477United States ReportsAnderson V. Liberty Lobby, Inc.List Of United States Supreme Court Cases, Volume 477United States ReportsMatsushita Elec. Industrial Co. V. Zenith Radio Corp.List Of United States Supreme Court Cases, Volume 475United States ReportsUnited StatesUnited States District CourtFederal Rules Of Civil ProcedureParty (law)Fact (law)Federal Judicial CenterEnlargeAffirmative DefenseDeposition (law)AffidavitWitnessDiscovery (law)ContractE-mailLetter (message)Memorandum Of LawOral ArgumentLawyerDispositive MotionUnited States Federal CourtsInitial Conference (law)Web Search EngineGoogle ScholarWeb Search EngineBench TrialUnited States Federal CourtsTitle 28 Of The United States CodeTitle 28 Of The United States CodeTrial De NovoU.S. StateOxymoronCalifornia State LegislatureMotion (legal)U.S. District CourtsMargin (typography)FontPaginationStaple (fastener)Hole PunchMotion To Strike (court Of Law)Federal Rules Of Civil ProcedureSocial Security NumberTaxpayer Identification NumberBirthdayMinor (law)Sanitization (classified Information)Rubber StampUnder Seal (Law)Minor (law)Under Seal (Law)Party (law)England And WalesCivil Procedure RulesRent Act 1977Housing Act 1988Admiralty LawJurisdiction In RemQuebecOntarioMaster (judiciary)AlbertaBritish ColumbiaSupreme Court Of CanadaHryniak V. MauldinDispositive MotionQueen's Law JournalQueen's UniversityInternational Standard Book NumberSpecial:BookSources/978-1-4249-5130-7Help:CategoryCategory:Judgment (law)Discussion About Edits From This IP Address [n]A List Of Edits Made From This IP Address [y]View The Content Page [c]Discussion About The Content Page [t]Edit This Page [e]Visit The Main Page [z]Guides To Browsing WikipediaFeatured Content – The Best Of WikipediaFind Background Information On Current EventsLoad A Random Article [x]Guidance On How To Use And Edit WikipediaFind Out About WikipediaAbout The Project, What You Can Do, Where To Find ThingsA List Of Recent Changes In The Wiki [r]List Of All English Wikipedia Pages Containing Links To This Page [j]Recent Changes In Pages Linked From This Page [k]Upload Files [u]A List Of All Special Pages [q]Wikipedia:AboutWikipedia:General Disclaimer

view link view link view link view link view link