Also known as: no genuine issue as to any material fact · genuine dispute of material fact · FRCP 56 · summary judgment standard
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A condition that, when paired with a showing that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, requires a federal court to grant summary judgment on a claim or defense.
Sky Stack sued Pioneer Cloud for breach after API response times dropped for its accounts alone. Pioneer Cloud moved for summary judgment and pointed to emails and logs showing only routine load balancing that stayed within contractual tolerances. Sky Stack offered no evidence of a selective policy outside permitted measures. The court granted the motion because the record revealed no genuine dispute as to any material fact on breach.
Adickes alleged a conspiracy between a store and police to deny her service on racial grounds. The store moved for summary judgment after discovery closed. Adickes produced no evidence of an agreement or state action beyond her own allegations. The court granted the motion because the record contained no genuine dispute as to any material fact supporting the conspiracy claim.
Sandra Adickes, a white school teacher from New York, was working as a volunteer teacher at a Freedom School for Negro children in Hattiesburg, Mississippi, during the summer of 1964. On August 14, 1964, Adickes went with six of her Negro students to the Hattiesburg Public Library, where the librarian refused to allow the students to use the library and summoned the chief of police, who ordered the group to leave. The group then went to the S. H. Kress & Co. store in Hattiesburg to have lunch. Adickes filed suit against Kress in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York seeking damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. After the group sat down at the lunch counter, a policeman entered the store and observed them. A waitress took the orders of the Negro students but refused to serve Adickes on the ground that she was a white person in the company of Negroes. The group left the store without being served. As they reached the sidewalk, the same policeman arrested Adickes on a vagrancy charge. The vagrancy charge against Adickes was subsequently changed, and she was tried and acquitted. Her complaint contained two counts under § 1983. One count alleged that Kress had refused her service pursuant to a custom of the community to segregate the races in public eating places that was enforced by the State. The other count alleged that the refusal of service and the arrest were the product of a conspiracy between Kress employees and the Hattiesburg police. Kress moved for summary judgment on the conspiracy count and submitted depositions from the store manager, the waitress, and the arresting officers, along with affidavits from police officials, all denying any agreement or communication with the police about refusing service or making the arrest. Adickes opposed the motion by pointing to her deposition statement and an unsworn statement from a Kress employee indicating that a policeman had been in the store at the time of the refusal. The District Court granted summary judgment on the conspiracy count, holding that Adickes had failed to allege facts from which a conspiracy might be inferred. After a trial on the custom count, the District Court directed a verdict for Kress because Adickes had not proved other instances of whites being refused service while in the company of Negroes. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court's rulings on both counts. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the case.
View caseCatrett sued Celotex claiming her husband died from asbestos exposure to its products. Celotex moved for summary judgment and noted the absence of any record evidence linking its products to the decedent in the relevant period. Catrett responded only with deposition transcripts and letters from other proceedings. The court granted the motion because the record revealed no genuine dispute as to any material fact on exposure.
In September 1980 respondent Catrett, as administratrix of her husband's estate, commenced a wrongful-death action in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia against fifteen named corporations including petitioner Celotex Corporation. The complaint alleged that her husband Louis H. Catrett died in 1979 from exposure to asbestos products manufactured or distributed by the defendants. The action was removed to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on diversity grounds. After extensive discovery Celotex filed a motion for summary judgment in September 1981 asserting that respondent had failed to produce any evidence that the decedent had been exposed to Celotex asbestos products. In response respondent produced a transcript of the decedent's deposition taken in a separate California proceeding, a letter from an official of one of Celotex's former insurance companies, and a letter from one of Celotex's customers. In July 1982 the District Court granted summary judgment to Celotex on the ground that respondent had made no showing of exposure to Celotex products in the District of Columbia or elsewhere within the statutory period. Respondent appealed only that ruling. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed, holding that Celotex had failed to meet its initial burden because it made no effort to adduce affirmative evidence supporting its motion. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the circuits concerning the proper standard under Rule 56.
View caseLiberty Lobby sued Anderson for publishing articles it called defamatory. Anderson moved for summary judgment after discovery. The record showed the plaintiff was a public figure and contained no clear and convincing evidence of actual malice. The court granted the motion because the record revealed no genuine dispute as to any material fact on the required fault element.
In October 1981, The Investigator magazine published two articles entitled "The Private World of Willis Carto" and "Yockey: Profile of an American Hitler," along with a shorter introductory article. These articles portrayed respondent Liberty Lobby, Inc., a not-for-profit corporation and self-described citizens' lobby, and its founder Willis A. Carto as neo-Nazi, anti-Semitic, racist, and Fascist. Respondents filed a diversity libel action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against petitioners Jack Anderson, the publisher, Bill Adkins, and the Investigator Publishing Co., alleging that 28 statements and 2 illustrations in the articles were false and derogatory. Following discovery, petitioners moved for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. In support, they submitted an affidavit from Charles Bermant, the author of the articles, stating that he had spent substantial time researching from a wide variety of sources and believed the facts to be truthful, along with an appendix detailing sources for each allegedly libelous statement. Respondents opposed the motion, asserting inaccuracies and that Bermant had relied on patently unreliable sources, and presented evidence that editor William McGaw had told Adkins before publication that the articles were terrible and ridiculous. The District Court held that respondents were limited-purpose public figures to whom the New York Times standards applied. After reviewing the evidence, the District Court granted summary judgment to petitioners. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed as to 21 statements and reversed as to 9. It held that the requirement that actual malice be proved by clear and convincing evidence need not be considered at the summary judgment stage. The Supreme Court granted certiorari because the holding conflicted with decisions of several other Courts of Appeals.
View caseShareholders sued Tellabs alleging the company misled investors about product demand. Tellabs moved for summary judgment and cited internal documents showing executives believed demand forecasts were accurate. Plaintiffs offered no evidence creating a strong inference of scienter. The court granted the motion because the record revealed no genuine dispute as to any material fact on the scienter element.
Petitioner Tellabs, Inc. manufactures specialized equipment used in fiber optic networks. During the time period relevant to this case, petitioner Richard Notebaert was Tellabs' chief executive officer and president. Respondents purchased Tellabs stock between December 11, 2000, and June 19, 2001. The shareholders alleged that Notebaert made statements indicating that demand for Tellabs' flagship networking device, the TITAN 5500, was continuing to grow when in fact demand for that product was waning. Notebaert made statements indicating that the TITAN 6500 was available for delivery and that demand for that product was strong and growing when in truth the product was not ready for delivery and demand was weak. Notebaert falsely represented Tellabs' financial results for the fourth quarter of 2000 and, in connection with those results, condoned the practice of channel stuffing under which Tellabs flooded its customers with unwanted products. Notebaert made a series of overstated revenue projections when demand for the TITAN 5500 was drying up and production of the TITAN 6500 was behind schedule. The first public glimmer that business was not so healthy came in March 2001 when Tellabs modestly reduced its first quarter sales projections. On June 19, 2001, the last day of the class period, Tellabs disclosed that demand for the TITAN 5500 had significantly dropped. Simultaneously, the company substantially lowered its revenue projections for the second quarter of 2001. The next day, the price of Tellabs stock, which had reached a high of $67 during the period, plunged to a low of $15.87. On December 3, 2002, the shareholders filed a class action in the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Their complaint stated, inter alia, that Tellabs and Notebaert had engaged in securities fraud in violation of section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Tellabs moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the shareholders had failed to plead their case with the particularity the PSLRA requires. The District Court agreed and therefore dismissed the complaint without prejudice. The shareholders then amended their complaint, adding references to 27 confidential sources and making further, more specific allegations concerning Notebaert's mental state. The District Court again dismissed, this time with prejudice. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed in relevant part. Like the District Court, the Court of Appeals found that the shareholders had pleaded the misleading character of Notebaert's statements with sufficient particularity. Unlike the District Court, however, the Seventh Circuit concluded that the shareholders had sufficiently alleged that Notebaert acted with the requisite state of mind. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the disagreement among the Circuits on whether and to what extent a court must consider competing inferences in determining whether a securities fraud complaint gives rise to a strong inference of scienter.
View caseForsyth sued Mitchell for authorizing a warrantless wiretap. Mitchell moved for summary judgment asserting qualified immunity. The record showed the law on warrantless wiretaps was unsettled at the time of the conduct. The court granted the motion because the record revealed no genuine dispute as to any material fact on whether the immunity defense applied.
In 1970, the Federal Bureau of Investigation learned that members of the East Coast Conspiracy to Save Lives had planned to blow up heating tunnels linking federal office buildings in Washington, D.C. The group had also discussed kidnapping National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger. On November 6, 1970, then Attorney General John Mitchell authorized a warrantless wiretap on the telephone of William Davidon, a Haverford College physics professor and group member. The stated purpose was gathering intelligence in the interest of national security. The FBI installed the tap in late November 1970 and it remained in place until January 6, 1971. During that period the Government intercepted three conversations between Davidon and respondent Keith Forsyth. Forsyth learned of the wiretap in 1972 while facing unrelated criminal charges. He moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3504 for disclosure of any electronic surveillance to which he had been subjected. The Government's response revealed that Forsyth had participated in conversations overheard during surveillance expressly authorized by the President acting through the Attorney General. An affidavit from then Attorney General Richard Kleindienst stated the surveillance was authorized under the President's national security authority in 18 U.S.C. § 2511(3). Shortly after this Court decided United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297 (1972), Forsyth filed suit against Mitchell and other defendants in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. He alleged violations of the Fourth Amendment and Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. He sought compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages. Discovery and preliminary proceedings continued for five and a half years. By early 1978 both parties had filed motions for summary judgment. The District Court found no genuine dispute that the FBI had informed Mitchell of the ECCSL plots, that Mitchell had authorized the warrantless tap on Davidon's phone, and that the ostensible purpose was national-security intelligence gathering. The court rejected Mitchell's claim to absolute prosecutorial immunity under Imbler v. Pachtman but held that he could assert qualified immunity. Neither side had established the absence of a genuine issue of material fact as to his good faith, so the court denied both summary-judgment motions. Mitchell appealed the denial of absolute immunity. The Third Circuit remanded for further factfinding on whether the authorization was necessary to a decision to initiate a criminal prosecution. On remand the District Court held a hearing and concluded that Mitchell's authorization was not intended to facilitate any prosecutorial decision. After this Court decided Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982), the District Court reconsidered qualified immunity, denied Mitchell's motion for summary judgment, granted Forsyth's motion on liability, and scheduled proceedings on damages. Mitchell again appealed. The Third Circuit held that it had jurisdiction over the absolute-immunity denial but that the qualified-immunity denial was not appealable under the collateral-order doctrine, and it remanded for further proceedings. Mitchell petitioned for certiorari, which this Court granted.
View caseThe movant must identify each claim or defense on which judgment is sought and demonstrate both the absence of any genuine dispute as to any material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The court views the record in the light most favorable to the nonmovant and draws all reasonable inferences in that party's favor. If the movant carries this burden, the court grants the motion and states its reasons on the record.
Supporting sources
Once the movant points to record materials showing no genuine dispute, the nonmovant must respond with specific facts supported by admissible evidence that creates a triable issue on a material fact. Conclusory assertions or denials are insufficient. If the nonmovant fails to do so, the court may treat the asserted facts as undisputed and grant judgment.
Supporting sources
A fact is material if it might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing substantive law. Disputes over immaterial facts do not prevent summary judgment. The court determines materiality by reference to the elements of the claim or defense at issue.
Supporting sources
No. The court may not weigh the evidence or make credibility determinations at the summary judgment stage. Those functions belong to the jury. The court asks only whether the record, viewed most favorably to the nonmovant, would permit a reasonable jury to find for that party.
Supporting sources
…depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." In determining whether summary judgment is proper, a court ordinarily must look at the record in the light most…