- 10 -
The Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed, holding
that the plain language of rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure compelled the result:
Under Rule 56(c), 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 our view, the plain
language of Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summary
judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon
motion, against a party who fails to make a showing
sufficient to establish the existence of an element
essential to that party's case, and on which that party
will bear the burden of proof at trial. In such a
situation, there can be 'no genuine issue as to any
material fact,' since a complete failure of proof
concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party's
case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial. The
moving party is 'entitled to a judgment as a matter
of law' because the nonmoving party has failed to make
a sufficient showing on an essential element of her
case with respect to which she has the burden of proof.
* * *
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, supra at 322-323.
Rule 121(b) and rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure impose identical standards using virtually identical
language. The Supreme Court's decision in Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, supra, confirms that we may enter a summary judgment in
favor of the moving party where the nonmoving party has the
burden of proof at trial and fails to respond to a summary
judgment motion as required by Rule 121.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011