Also known as: FRCP 56 · Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 · Rule 56 · summary judgment rule
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A procedural rule authorizing a court to enter judgment without a trial when the movant shows there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The rule requires the court to examine cited record materials such as affidavits, documents, and discovery responses while viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.
Floyd Franklin sued Freeman Engineering in federal court alleging breach of a supply contract. Freeman Engineering moved under Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss the complaint and attached an email exchange showing Franklin had accepted substitute performance. The court considered the email and converted the motion to one for summary judgment under Rule 56, giving Franklin an opportunity to submit additional materials on whether the acceptance was knowing.
Freya Freeman, a public figure, sued Frostline Textiles for defamation over a newspaper article. Frostline moved for summary judgment after discovery. The court applied the clear-and-convincing evidence standard to the record and granted the motion because no reasonable jury could find actual malice by that heightened measure.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Flora Ford and other environmental advocates sued Fusion Power alleging violations of wildlife-protection statutes. Fusion Power moved for summary judgment on standing. The court examined the affidavits and denied the motion because the evidence created a genuine issue whether the plaintiffs faced imminent injury from the challenged conduct.
Frederick Ferguson sued Falcon Dynamics for product liability after a workplace injury. Falcon Dynamics moved for summary judgment, pointing to the absence of evidence on causation in the record. The court granted the motion because Ferguson produced no admissible evidence creating a genuine dispute on that required element.
Fiona Foster sued Freeman Engineering alleging an antitrust conspiracy. After discovery, Freeman Engineering moved for summary judgment. The court granted the motion because the record showed only parallel conduct and no evidence supporting a plausible inference of an agreement.
Forrest Falconer sued Frostline Textiles for employment discrimination. Frostline moved for summary judgment after discovery. The court denied the motion because the record contained evidence from which a reasonable jury could disbelieve the employer's stated reason and infer discrimination.
A party may move at any time until 30 days after the close of all discovery unless the court or local rules set a different deadline.
The nonmovant must respond with specific facts supported by admissible evidence showing a genuine dispute on a material issue. Mere conclusory assertions or reliance on pleadings alone is insufficient.
The court views all evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant and draws all reasonable inferences in the nonmovant's favor while considering only cited materials unless it chooses to review the entire record.
The court may give the party an opportunity to cure the deficiency, consider the fact undisputed, grant summary judgment, or issue another appropriate order.
…respondents' evidentiary burden ( i. e. , affidavits asserting "specific facts") in withstanding a summary judgment motion under Rule 56(e) with the standard of proof ( i. e. , the existence of a "genuine issue" of "material fact") under Rule 56(c). 1 Were the Court to apply the proper standard for summary judgment,…