- 5 -
Discussion
Summary judgment is intended to expedite litigation and
avoid unnecessary and expensive trials. Fla. Peach Corp. v.
Commissioner, 90 T.C. 678, 681 (1988). Summary judgment is not,
however, a substitute for trial; it should not be used to resolve
disputes over factual issues. Espinoza v. Commissioner, 78 T.C.
412, 416 (1982). Summary judgment may be granted where there is
no genuine issue of any material fact and a decision may be
rendered as a matter of law. Rule 121(a) and (b); see 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).
Respondent, as the moving party, has the burden of showing that
there is no genuine issue of material fact; all doubts as to the
existence of an issue of material fact must be resolved against
the movant. Dahlstrom v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 812, 821 (1985);
Jacklin v. Commissioner, 79 T.C. 340, 344 (1982). When a motion
for summary judgment is made and properly supported, the adverse
party may not rest upon mere allegations or denials of the
pleadings but must set forth specific facts showing that there is
a genuine issue for trial. Rule 121(d).
Generally, “A prior conviction will estop a party from
contesting in a later civil suit any element necessarily
established in the criminal trial.” Considine v. United States,
683 F.2d 1285, 1286 (9th Cir. 1982). The Court of Appeals for
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011