- 8 - an appropriate case, summary judgment saves both party and judicial resources and results in the expeditious and efficient resolution of controversies. The party moving for summary judgment need not negate with evidence every allegation made by the opposing party. As we stated in Toushin v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-573: In Celotex [Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986)], the Supreme Court held that the moving party in a summary judgment action need not in all cases introduce evidence negating an essential element of the opponent's claim in order to prevail on the motion. If the moving party, after adequate time for discovery, can make a "showing" from the record of "a complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party's case" and on which the nonmoving party will bear the burden of proof at trial, there can be "’no genuine issue as to any material fact,’" with respect to that claim. Id. at 322-323. [Toushin v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-573; fn. ref. omitted.] Once the opposing party presents evidence to support its claims, we must draw all inferences from that evidence in favor of the party opposing summary judgment. United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655 (1962). But any inference must be drawn from evidence submitted in connection with the summary judgment motion, and not from mere allegations in the pleadings. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, supra at at 324.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011