Cook v. Cullen, 23 Mass. L. Rptr. 504 (2007)

Citation: Cook v. Cullen, 23 Mass. L. Rptr. 504 (2007)
Parent Document: Cook v. Cullen, 23 Mass. L. Rptr. 504 (2007)
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts (state)
Effective Date: 2007-12-28
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8356738/cook-v-cullen/ ↗

Full Text

1,316 chars

Summary judgment is appropriate where there are no material facts in dispute and, as a result, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Mass.R.Civ.P. 56(c). The moving party “assumes the burden of affirmatively demonstrating that there is no genuine issue of material fact on every relevant issue . . .” Pederson v. Time, Inc., 404 Mass. 14, 17 (1989). A party moving for summary judgment who does not bear the burden of proof at trial is entitled to summary judgment if it demonstrates “that the party opposing the motion has no reasonable expectation of proving an essential element of that party’s case.” Kourouvacilis v. General Motors Corp., 410 Mass. 706, 716 (1991). The moving party may show the absence of a triable issue either by submitting affirmative evidence that negates an essential element of the opponent’s case or “by demonstrating that proof of that element is unlikely to be forthcoming at trial.” Flesner v. Technical Communications Corp., 410 Mass. 805, 809 (1991). “(T]he opposing party cannot rest on his other pleadings and mere assertions of disputed facts to defeat the motion for summary judgment.” LaLonde v. Eissner, 405 Mass. 207, 209 (1989). All facts are viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Williams v. Hartman, 413 Mass. 398, 401 (1992).

Other Sections in This Document (22)

Full Text