/JEN-yoo-in ISH-oo az tuh EN-ee muh-TEER-ee-ul FAKTS/·phrase
Also known as:genuine issues as to any material facts · genuine issue of material fact · genuine issues of material fact · genuine dispute as to any material fact · summary judgment standard · no genuine issue of material fact
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A procedural threshold that precludes summary judgment when the record contains evidence permitting a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party on a fact that could affect the outcome under the governing substantive law. The movant must first cite materials showing the absence of such a dispute before the burden shifts to the nonmovant to produce contrary admissible evidence.
Sources & Authorities
How it applies
Common Examples
6
Insurer's Motion on Leakage Exclusion
Harbor Warehouse LLC sued Sentinel Insurance Corp after water damage at its facility. Sentinel moved for summary judgment with inspection photographs, adjuster reports, and the policy excluding long-term leakage. Harbor responded only with attorney argument claiming sudden intrusion and submitted no affidavits or other evidence. The court granted the motion because the record presented no evidence creating a triable dispute on a fact that would change the coverage outcome.
Defamation Evidence on Actual Malice
A public figure sued a newspaper for publishing allegedly false statements about his business dealings. The newspaper moved for summary judgment after discovery, citing affidavits from reporters and source documents showing their investigation. The plaintiff offered only general denials without specific contradictory evidence on the reporters' knowledge or recklessness. The court granted the motion because nothing in the record permitted a jury to find actual malice.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Statutes
Federal Rules
Study Supplements
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986)
Asbestos Exposure Claim Lacking Proof
A widow sued an asbestos manufacturer claiming her husband's death resulted from workplace exposure to its products. The manufacturer moved for summary judgment after discovery, pointing to the absence of any evidence linking its products to the decedent. The widow produced no documents, witnesses, or expert reports establishing exposure. The court granted the motion because the record contained no evidence creating a genuine dispute on the essential element of causation.
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986)
Pleading Allegations Versus Record Evidence
A detainee sued federal officials alleging a policy of harsh conditions amounting to unconstitutional treatment. The officials moved for summary judgment after discovery with internal reports and deposition testimony showing individualized decisions rather than a coordinated policy. The plaintiff relied solely on the complaint allegations without additional evidence. The court granted the motion because the pleadings alone did not create a triable factual dispute on the existence of the alleged policy.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal556 U.S. 662 (2009)
Expert Opinion on Causation Reliability
Parents sued a manufacturer claiming a chemical exposure caused their child's birth defects. The manufacturer moved for summary judgment after discovery, attaching expert affidavits and studies showing no reliable causal link. The parents offered only their expert's opinion without addressing methodological flaws identified by the defense experts. The court granted the motion because the plaintiffs' evidence failed to create a genuine dispute on the reliability of their causation theory.
General Electric Co. v. Joiner522 U.S. 166 (1997)
Cigarette Warning Adequacy Dispute
A smoker sued a tobacco company alleging inadequate package warnings caused his lung cancer. The company moved for summary judgment after discovery with internal documents and regulatory records showing compliance with federal labeling requirements. The plaintiff submitted no evidence contradicting the adequacy of the warnings or his awareness of the risks. The court granted the motion because the record left no genuine dispute on the preemption and warning issues.
Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.893 F.2d 541 (3d Cir.1990), affirmed in part and reversed in part, 505 U.S. 504 (1992)
Common questions
Frequently Asked
4
What makes a fact material for summary judgment purposes?+
A fact is material if it could affect the outcome of the case under the governing substantive law. Disputes over trivial or irrelevant facts do not prevent summary judgment even if genuinely contested.
Supporting sources
When does unsupported argument fail to create a genuine dispute?+
A nonmovant cannot defeat summary judgment with bare attorney argument or pleadings alone. The party must produce admissible evidence such as affidavits, documents, or deposition testimony that a reasonable jury could use to find in its favor.
Supporting sources
How does the burden shift once the movant supports its motion?+
After the movant cites record materials showing no genuine dispute, the nonmovant must identify specific contrary evidence. Failure to do so permits the court to grant summary judgment even on claims involving damages or contract issues.
Supporting sources
Can credibility issues alone defeat a properly supported motion?+
No. A party cannot avoid summary judgment merely by asserting that a jury might disbelieve the movant's evidence. There must be affirmative record evidence creating a factual conflict for the jury to resolve.
Supporting sources
509 U.S. 579, 592 (1993)Evidence
…judgment. Because plaintiffs bear the ultimate burden of proof on causation, Merrell had only to point to the absence of a genuine issue of material fact; it wasn't required to produce any evidence at all. See Maffei v. Northern Insulation of New York , 12 F.3d 892, 899 (9th Cir.1993). Thus, the admissibility of Merrell's expert's affidavit…