Driscoll v. Toll MA Ltd. Partnership, 26 Mass. L. Rptr. 345 (2009)

Citation: Driscoll v. Toll MA Ltd. Partnership, 26 Mass. L. Rptr. 345 (2009)
Parent Document: Driscoll v. Toll MA Ltd. Partnership, 26 Mass. L. Rptr. 345 (2009)
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts (state)
Effective Date: 2009-12-28
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8357328/driscoll-v-toll-ma-ltd-partnership/ ↗

Full Text

1,186 chars

Summary judgment is appropriate where there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Mass.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Kourouvacilis v. General Motors Corp., 410 Mass. 706, 716 (1991). The moving party-bears the burden of affirmatively showing that there is no triable issue of fact. Pederson v. Time, Inc., 404 Mass. 14, 16-17 (1989). A party moving for summary judgment who does not have the burden of proof at trial may demonstrate the absence of a triable issue either by submitting affirmative evidence negating an essential element of the nonmoving party’s case or by showing that the nonmoving party has no reasonable expectation of proving an essential element of its case at trial. Kourouvacilis, 410 Mass. at 716. Once the moving party “establishes the absence of a triable issue, the party opposing the motion must respond and allege specific facts which would establish the existence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Pederson, 404 Mass, at 17. The court reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, but does not weigh evidence, assess credibility, or find facts. Bailey, 386 Mass, at 370-71.

Other Sections in This Document (35)

Full Text