Hol' Dir diese Lernkarten, lerne & bestehe Prüfungen. Kostenlos! Auch auf iPhone/Android!

P white school teacher went to lunchroom w/ Black students in MS – said conspiracy to arrest her b/c she was w/ Blacks; D motion for SJ granted at District Court.  b/c Δ moved for SJ, had burden of showing absence of genuine issue of fact – on review evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the opposing party.

H - b/c moving party, the D, failed to provide evidence that there was no policeman in the store, a reasonable jury could have found there was one there.  Did not shift the burden.

*BURDEN OF PRODUCTION, NOT PERSUASION - COULD a reasonable finder of fact find for you?*

NOT DESIGNED TO MODIFY BURDEN OF MOVING PARTY TO SHOW INITIALLY ABSENCE OF GENUINE ISSUE OF MATERIAL FACT
Moving party has burden of preponderance of the evidence – b/c MADE MOTION has BURDEN and needs to show evidence to SHIFT BURDEN BACK (must produce affirmative evidence)
When evidence in support of motion does not establish absence of genuine issue, motion must be denied even if no opposing evidentiary matter is presented
Non-movant only needs to come forward w/ opposing information when movant meets original burden

Moving party has the burden of proving that there is no issue of material fact; must establish truth of his position in order to get other pty to respond.

Movant who does not have at trial burden of proof should have a reduced burden for SJ.  Must support motion w/ some evidence to at least  show nonexistence of essential element of opposing party’s case (initial burden) [if fails to discharge burden, motion fails…if succeeds, burden should shift to opposing party to respond].  Can obtain preview of opponent’s evidence on an essential element and contend that evidence is insufficient to discharge opponent’s production burden (good when direct proof lacking, but is burdensome and costly).  Can preview own proof in attempt to show nonexistence of essential element asserted by opposing party

If evidence in ct would demand a directed verdict, only then can motion for SJ.  No burden on moving party – just make the motion…don’t need to show evidence, burden IMMEDIATELY shifts to non moving party upon motion

P alleged death of husband from asbestos – named 15 companies – 1 says not so fast, you have no proof I killed your husband – I’m moving for SJ.

H - no affirmative duty for D to come forward with evidence.  Non-moving party may not rely only on its pleadings once the burden has been shifted, but moving party does not have to bring affirmative evidence.  Evidence things put in rule and such are for the purpose of making a respondent to an SJ motion rely on more than just pleadings.

Crazy case about Cole Porter songs.  Although P's affidavits were ridiculous, case not proper for SJ b/c Porter could have heard his songs by other means.

H - slightest doubt test.

* this standard has been made tougher since 1946, no longer applies.

slander case, P refused to take depositions and lost his opportunity to countervail sworn affidavits. He tried to rely on demeanor evidence (i.e. the jury will see when they take the stand that they are lying)

Moore
Louis
Currie
Celotex
Dyer
Matsushita
Adickes
Arnstein