- 6 -
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); see Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Sundstrand Corp. v.
Commissioner, 98 T.C. 518, 520 (1992), affd. 17 F.3d 965 (7th
Cir. 1994); Zaentz v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 753, 754 (1988);
Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985).
The moving party bears the burden of proving that there is
no genuine issue of material fact, and factual inferences will be
read in a manner most favorable to the party opposing summary
judgment. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, supra at 322; Dahlstrom v.
Commissioner, 85 T.C. 812, 821 (1985); Jacklin v. Commissioner,
79 T.C. 340, 344 (1982). The inferences to be drawn from the
facts are to be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-
moving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,
475 U.S. 574, 588 (1986). When the moving party has carried its
burden, however, the party opposing the summary judgment motion
must do more than simply show that “there is some metaphysical
doubt as to the material facts.” Id. at 586. The party opposing
the motion “may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of
his pleadings, but * * * must set forth specific facts showing
there is a genuine issue for trial.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011