Difference between revisions of "Celotex Corp. v. Catrett"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(New page: In ''Celotex Corp. v. Catrett'', 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986), the United States Supreme Court held that summary judgment is appropriate when the non-moving party has the burden of ...) |
FernoKlump (talk | contribs) m |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | In ''Celotex Corp. v. Catrett'', 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986), the [[United States Supreme Court]] held that [[summary judgment]] is appropriate when the non-moving party has the burden of proof on an essential element of his case and does not make, after adequate time for discovery, a showing sufficient to establish that element. | + | In '''''Celotex Corp. v. Catrett''''', 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986), the [[United States Supreme Court]] held that [[summary judgment]] is appropriate when the non-moving party has the burden of proof on an essential element of his case and does not make, after adequate time for discovery, a showing sufficient to establish that element. |
[[Category:United States Supreme Court Cases]] | [[Category:United States Supreme Court Cases]] | ||
Latest revision as of 02:54, April 29, 2008
In Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986), the United States Supreme Court held that summary judgment is appropriate when the non-moving party has the burden of proof on an essential element of his case and does not make, after adequate time for discovery, a showing sufficient to establish that element.