Also known as:genuine disputes of material fact · genuine dispute as to any material fact · genuine issue of material fact
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A factual disagreement that precludes summary judgment. The disagreement qualifies as genuine when the record contains evidence permitting a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party. The disagreement qualifies as material when the fact would affect the outcome under the governing substantive law.
Sources & Authorities
How it applies
Common Examples
6
GPS Logs Versus Delivery Receipts
Global Cargo moved for summary judgment on Sean’s misclassification claim and supported the motion with a dispatcher’s declaration describing selected GPS logs. Sean opposed with uncited delivery receipts showing repeated late arrivals. The receipts directly contradict the inference of strict control that Global Cargo drew from the cited logs, creating a genuine dispute of material fact on the degree of supervision that a reasonable jury could resolve either way.
Video Evidence of Police Chase
A motorist sued a deputy sheriff after a high-speed pursuit ended in a crash. The deputy moved for summary judgment on qualified-immunity grounds and submitted a dash-cam video. The video showed the motorist weaving through traffic and running red lights at dangerous speeds. Because the video conclusively established the motorist’s reckless driving, no genuine dispute of material fact remained on the reasonableness of the force used.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Statutes
Federal Rules
Casebooks
Hornbooks
Course Outlines
Study Supplements
Scott v. Harris550 U.S. 372 (2007)
Conflicting Evidence on Actual Malice
A magazine published an article accusing a lobbying group of ties to organized crime. The group sued for defamation and the publisher moved for summary judgment. The record contained some evidence that the reporters had relied on questionable sources yet also contained evidence that they had conducted additional verification. The conflicting evidence left a genuine dispute of material fact on whether the publisher acted with actual malice.
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986)
Absence of Evidence on Causation
A widow sued an asbestos manufacturer claiming her husband’s exposure caused his mesothelioma. The manufacturer moved for summary judgment and pointed out that the plaintiff had produced no admissible evidence linking any of its products to the decedent. Because the plaintiff failed to come forward with evidence creating a genuine dispute of material fact on exposure, summary judgment was proper.
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986)
Expert Testimony on Scientific Causation
Parents sued a pharmaceutical company alleging that a drug caused their child’s birth defects. The company moved for summary judgment after the court excluded the parents’ sole causation expert under Daubert standards. With no remaining admissible evidence that the drug could cause the defects, the record presented no genuine dispute of material fact on causation.
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.509 U.S. 579, 592 (1993)
Missing Evidence of Conspiracy
A customer sued a department store alleging that store employees and police officers conspired to deny her service because of race. The store moved for summary judgment. The customer produced no evidence that the employees and officers had reached an agreement. The absence of any proof of concerted action left no genuine dispute of material fact on the conspiracy claim.
Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co.398 U.S. 144, 152 (1970)
Common questions
Frequently Asked
4
When does a factual disagreement qualify as genuine for summary-judgment purposes?+
A disagreement is genuine when the evidence would allow a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Unsupported allegations or speculation do not suffice. The nonmovant must produce admissible evidence that creates a triable issue.
Supporting sources
How does the materiality requirement differ from the genuineness requirement?+
Materiality asks whether the disputed fact would affect the outcome under the governing substantive law. Genuineness asks whether the evidence permits a reasonable jury to decide that fact in the nonmovant’s favor. Both must be satisfied to defeat summary judgment.
Does a motion for summary judgment test the sufficiency of the pleadings or the sufficiency of the evidence?+
Summary judgment tests the sufficiency of the evidence in the record after discovery. A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) tests the sufficiency of the pleadings. The two devices operate at different stages and apply different standards.
What burden does the nonmovant carry once the movant shows an absence of evidence?+
The nonmovant must identify specific facts in the record that create a genuine dispute. The court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant but does not weigh credibility or resolve factual conflicts at the summary-judgment stage.
477 U.S. 242 (1986)Torts
…resolved by a jury. But the Court of Appeals did not specify what those instances were. Nor did it explain how they created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the defendants had acted with actual malice. The District Court, in contrast, had carefully reviewed the evidence and had concluded that there was no evidence that the…