- 7 -
"a nuisance settlement" and informed petitioner that he could
call him at any time up to 11 p.m. if petitioners decided to
accept the offer. Petitioners did not respond to the offer.
Petitioner Clara S. Fajardo did not appear at any time
during the trial session, nor did she respond to respondent's
counsel's repeated attempts by letter and telephone to contact
her concerning this case.
Discussion
Rule 121(a) authorizes either party to move for a summary
judgment in the moving party's favor upon all or any part of the
legal issues in controversy. Rule 121(b) requires that the
opposing party file a written response within such period as the
Court may direct and provides that a decision in favor of the
moving party shall be rendered "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." See also
Sundstrand Corp. v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 518, 520 (1992), affd.
17 F.3d 965 (7th Cir. 1994); Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527,
529 (1985).
The moving party bears the burden of showing that no genuine
issue exists as to any material fact and that he is entitled to
judgment on the substantive issues as a matter of law. See
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011