- 7 -
Summary judgment is intended to expedite litigation and
avoid unnecessary and expensive trials. American Manufacturers
Mut. Ins. Co. v. American Broadcasting-Paramount Theatres, Inc.,
388 F.2d 272, 278 (2d Cir. 1967); Boyd Gaming Corp. v.
Commissioner, supra at 346; Florida Peach Corp. v. Commissioner,
90 T.C. 678, 681 (1988). Rule 121(a) provides that “Either party
may move, with or without supporting affidavits, for a summary
adjudication in the moving party's favor upon all or any part of
the legal issues in controversy.” Summary judgment may be
granted with respect to all or any part of the legal issues in
controversy “if the pleadings, answers to interrogatories,
depositions, admissions, and any other acceptable materials,
together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact and that a decision may be
rendered as a matter of law.” Rule 121(b); Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986); Williams v. Crichton, 84
F.3d 581, 587 (2d Cir. 1996); Sundstrand Corp. v. Commissioner,
98 T.C. 518, 520 (1992), affd. 17 F.3d 965 (7th Cir. 1994);
Zaentz v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 753, 754 (1988); Naftel v.
Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985).
The moving party must prove that there is no genuine issue
of material fact, and all factual inferences are viewed in the
light most favorable to, and all ambiguities resolved in favor
of, the nonmoving party. Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011