-6-
Because the effect of granting a motion for summary judgment is
to decide the case against a party without allowing that party an
opportunity for a trial, the motion should be “cautiously
invoked” and granted only after a careful consideration of the
case. Associated Press v. United States, 326 U.S. 1, 6 (1945);
Cox v. American Fidelity & Casualty Co., 249 F.2d at 618; Kroh v.
Commissioner, 98 T.C. 383, 390 (1992). Respondent, as the moving
party, has the burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue
as to any material fact. For these purposes, the material
submitted by both sides must be viewed in the light most
favorable to the opposing party; that is, all doubts as to the
existence of an issue of material fact must be resolved against
the movant. E.g., Adickes v. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157
(1970); Dreher v. Sielaff, 636 F.2d 1141, 1143 n.4 (7th Cir.
1980); Kroh v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. at 390. In considering a
motion for summary judgment, we are to take into account “the
pleadings, answers to interrogatories, depositions, admissions,
and any other acceptable materials, together with the affidavits,
if any”. Rule 121(b).
Respondent relies on the criminal conviction of Anthony for
support of partial summary judgment.5 Respondent argues that
5 Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment is also based
on the deemed admissions in the Donnora docket. Respondent’s
reliance on those deemed admissions is questionable, but because
we granted the Donnoras’ motion for leave of Court to deny the
deemed admissions we need not explore the validity of
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011