- 11 -
maintain that the piggyback agreements that they executed provide
for entry of decision in their cases once there is a "final
decision" in the test cases. Petitioners assert that they are
entitled to entry of decision in their cases consistent with the
decision entered in the Thompson case assigned docket No. 19321-
83 on the grounds that the latter decision is final and
represents the most favorable of the decisions entered in the
Thompson and Cravens cases.
Respondent objects to petitioners' Motions for Summary
Judgment on the ground that petitioners misinterpret the
piggyback agreements. Specifically, respondent asserts that the
piggyback agreements reflect the parties' agreement to be bound
by the Court's opinion in the test cases as opposed to the
decision entered in a particular test case.
Discussion
Summary judgment is intended to expedite litigation and
avoid unnecessary and expensive trials. Florida Peach Corp. v.
Commissioner, 90 T.C. 678, 681 (1988). Summary judgment upon all
or any part of the legal issues in controversy is appropriate "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); Sundstrand Corp. v. Commissioner, 98 T.C.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011