- 9 -
Associated Press v. United States, 326 U.S. 1, 6 (1945); P & X
Markets, Inc. v. Commissioner, 106 T.C. 441, 443 (1996).
A motion for summary judgment necessarily implicates the
burden of proof that would apply at a trial on the merits.
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., supra at 252; United States v.
One Parcel of Property Located at 15 Black Ledge Dr.,
Marlborough, Conn., 897 F.2d 97, 101 (2d Cir. 1990). Thus, where
the moving party has the burden of proof by clear and convincing
evidence, his showing must be sufficient for the court to hold
that no reasonable trier of fact could find for the nonmoving
party. Irby v. Bittick, 44 F.3d 949, 953 (11th Cir. 1995);
Calderone v. United States, 799 F.2d 254, 259 (6th Cir. 1986).
It follows from these considerations that here, where respondent
has the burden of proving all the elements of fraud by clear and
convincing evidence and has moved for summary judgment, we grant
respondent’s motion only if she has met the burden of convincing
us that no reasonable trier of fact could find that respondent
has failed to prove any of the elements of fraud by clear and
convincing evidence. Cf. National Presto Indus. v. West Bend
Co., 76 F.3d 1185, 1189 (Fed. Cir. 1996); United States Gypsum
Co. v. National Gypsum Co., 74 F.3d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 1996);
Paragon Podiatry Lab., Inc. v. KLM Lab., Inc., 984 F.2d 1182,
1189-1190 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Baker Oil Tools, Inc. v. Geo Vann,
Inc., 828 F.2d 1558, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1987); Target Therapeutics,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011