Also known as: FRCP 56 · Fed. R. Civ. P. 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 that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The rule requires the court to examine the record as a whole and to view all evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by citing particular parts of materials in the record or by showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute.
Fernando Farrell sued his former employer for wrongful termination. The employer filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) attaching an employment contract and performance reviews not referenced in the complaint. The court declined to exclude the documents and converted the motion to one for summary judgment under Rule 56, directing the parties to submit additional materials on whether the termination complied with the contract terms.
Felipe Figueroa, a public-figure candidate, sued a newspaper for defamation over an article questioning his campaign finances. The newspaper moved for summary judgment with affidavits from its reporters detailing their sources. Figueroa responded with deposition excerpts from those sources contradicting the reporters' accounts. The court denied the motion because the conflicting testimony created a genuine issue of material fact on whether the newspaper acted with actual malice.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Fumiko Fujimoto and other environmental advocates sued a federal agency over a regulation they claimed would harm endangered species habitats they planned to visit. The agency moved for summary judgment arguing lack of standing. Fujimoto submitted affidavits describing concrete plans to travel to the affected areas in the near future. The court denied the motion because the affidavits raised a genuine issue of material fact on injury and redressability.
Fatou Fall sued a telecommunications company alleging an antitrust conspiracy to suppress competition in rural markets. After discovery the company moved for summary judgment with internal emails and pricing data showing independent business decisions. Fall offered only the allegations from her complaint without additional evidence. The court granted the motion because the record contained no facts creating a genuine dispute supporting the conspiracy claim.
Frederick Ferguson sued a manufacturer claiming exposure to asbestos caused his lung disease. The manufacturer moved for summary judgment asserting Ferguson could not prove exposure to its product. It supported the motion with affidavits from former employees stating the product was never sold in Ferguson's state. Ferguson responded with no contrary evidence. The court granted the motion because the manufacturer met its initial burden and Ferguson failed to identify any genuine dispute.
Felicity French sued her employer for age discrimination after being terminated. The employer moved for summary judgment citing performance reviews and a reduction-in-force plan. French responded with testimony from coworkers that her supervisor made repeated comments about replacing older workers. The court denied the motion because a reasonable jury could draw an inference of discriminatory intent from the supervisor's statements despite the employer's stated reasons.
A party may move for summary judgment at any time until 30 days after the close of all discovery unless the court or local rules set a different deadline. The motion may be filed even before discovery begins if the movant can support it with record materials.
The nonmovant must respond with specific facts supported by admissible evidence showing that a genuine dispute exists on a material issue. Mere conclusory assertions, denials, or reliance on the pleadings alone are insufficient once the movant has met its initial burden.
If matters outside the pleadings are presented on a Rule 12(b)(6) or 12(c) motion and not excluded by the court, the motion must be treated as one for summary judgment under Rule 56. All parties must then receive a reasonable opportunity to present pertinent material.
…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,…