Celotex Corp. v Catrett[477 U.S. 317]
Name and Citation
Celotex Corp. v Catrett[477 U.S. 317]
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Judicial History
Catrett filed wrongful death action against Celotex (and several other manufacturers) in District Court. Celotex motioned for summary judgment pointing out that Catrett could not produce evidence to support her claim. Court of Appeals reversed District Court decision, stating that Celotex was required to present supporting evidence to accompany motion for summary judgment. Certiorari was granted, and United States Supreme Court reversed Court of Appeals decision.
Facts
Catrett filed wrongful death action against 15 named manufacturing corporations, citing negligence, product liability, breach warranty and strict liability on the part of the corporations. Thirteen of the corporations (including Celotex) filed motions for summary judgment because Catrett failed to show evidence in support of her allegation that her husband's death was the result of asbestos exposure as a result of contact with corporations' products. Celotex noted that Catrett failed to identify any witnesses who could verify her husband's exposure to Celotex asbestos products. Catrett responded by producing three documents and claiming demonstrate these three documents establish that there is a genuine material factual dispute: (1) a transcript of a deposition from her husband; (2) a letter from a potential witness (3) a letter from an insurance company to Catrett's attorney. Celotex argued that the documents were inadmissible hearsay, and should not be considered to support Catrett's claim. District court granted all of the motions filed by the 13 defendant corporations. Catrett appealed ruling, and Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Celotex motion for summary judgment was defective because Celotex did not come forward with proof of the absence of any genuine issues of material fact.Supreme court reversed appellate court ruling holding that when nonmoving party would have the burden of proof at trial, the moving party could establish its initialburden on summary judgment by merely pointing out the absence of evidence in the record to support an essential element ofthe nonmoving party’s case.
Issue
Is a moving party on summary judgment required to support its motion for summary judgment with some evidence even if the opposing party has no admissible evidence to support its claim and also has the burden of proof?
Holding
No.
Reasoning
Under USCS Fed Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 56,when the non-moving party would have the burden ofproof at trial, the moving party can meet its initial burden on summary judgment simply by pointing out the absence ofevidence in the record to support an essential element of the nonmoving party’s case. The rules of Civil Procedure do not require that the moving party support its motion with materials negating the opponent's claim. If the rules required such, that might, in some cases, amount to proving a negative, which is difficult, if not impossible to do.
Decision
Reversed and remanded
Opinion by
Rehnquist, J
Dissenting Opinions
Brennan, Blackmun, Stevens: JJ
Burger, CJ
1