Ad
related to: summary judgment vs declaratory right of survivorship
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
It is not uncommon for summary judgments of the lower U.S. courts in complex cases to be overturned on appeal. A grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo, [15] meaning, without deference to the views of the trial judge, both as to the determination that there is no remaining genuine issue of material fact and that the prevailing party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
The filing of a declaratory judgment lawsuit can follow the sending by one party of a cease-and-desist letter to another party. [6] A party contemplating sending such a letter risks that the recipient, or a party related to the recipient (i.e. such as a customer or supplier), may file for a declaratory judgment in their own jurisdiction, or sue for minor damages in the law of unjustified threats.
JMOL is similar to judgment on the pleadings and summary judgment, all of which test the factual sufficiency of a claim. [4] Judgment on the pleadings is a motion made after pleading and before discovery; summary judgment happens after discovery and before trial; JMOL occurs during trial. [5]
Rule 56 deals with summary judgment. It is considered the last gate-keeping function before trial, answering the question of whether the claim could even go to a jury. A successful summary judgment motion persuades the court there is no "genuine issue of material fact" and also that the moving party is "entitled to judgment as a matter of law."
In common law systems, one feature that distinguishes a trial de novo from an appellate proceeding is that new evidence may not ordinarily be presented in an appeal (though there are rare instances when it may be allowed—usually evidence that came to light only after the trial and could not, in all diligence, have been presented in the lower court).
Regardless whether the dispositive motion is for summary judgment or adjudication, the motion must be supported by declarations under oath, excerpts from depositions which are also under oath, admissions of fact by the opposing party and other discovery such as interrogatories, as well as a legal argument (points and authorities). The other ...
Holding; To survive a motion for a summary judgment, a plaintiff seeking damages for a violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act must present evidence "that tends to exclude the possibility" that the alleged conspirators acted independently, such that the inference of a conspiracy is reasonable in light of the competing inferences of independent action or collusive action that could not have harmed ...
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court.Written by Associate Justice William Rehnquist, the decision of the Court held that a party moving for summary judgment need show only that the opposing party lacks evidence sufficient to support its case.