- 20 -
Petitioners, as the moving parties, have the burden of
showing the absence of a genuine issue as to any material fact.
For these purposes, the party opposing the motion is to be
afforded the benefit of all reasonable doubt, and 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 movants. 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 the instant cases, respondent has not filed any cross-
motion for partial summary judgment. Where, as in the instant
cases, only one side has moved for summary judgment, there is
implicit in the movants’ obligations as to material facts that
the movants have to persuade the Court that they have correctly
identified what facts are material.
Petitioners submitted the affidavits of Richard C. Baker and
J. Everett Milott. Richard C. Baker, a consultant in the early
1990s, describes his role in the establishment of EAPR, the
establishment of the operations in the facility that EAPR leased
from PPI, and the activities of Zamora. J. Everett Milott, PPI’s
executive vice present and general manager when he executed his
affidavit, describes PPI‘s activities from 1992 through 1996 in
connection with the Agreement and the Lease. Respondent
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011