---
title: Summary Judgment Standards
description: An overview of the legal standards and requirements for obtaining summary judgment in civil litigation.
keywords: [summary judgment, civil procedure, burden of proof, standard of review, dispositive motion]
category: law
---

## Introduction to Summary Judgment

Summary judgment is a procedural mechanism in civil litigation that allows a court to enter judgment on a claim or defense without a full trial. It is governed by Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure[^1] and similar state court rules. The primary purpose of summary judgment is to "pierce the pleadings" and assess whether there is a genuine dispute of material fact that requires resolution by a trier of fact, or whether the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.[^2] This doctrine promotes judicial efficiency and helps to streamline the litigation process by avoiding unnecessary trials.

## The Summary Judgment Standard

The standard for granting summary judgment is well-established in federal and state courts. The movant bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact.[^3] This requires the moving party to identify those portions of the record, including pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, that it believes demonstrate the lack of a triable factual issue.[^4] 

Once the movant has met this initial burden, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to "set forth specific facts showing a genuine dispute for trial."[^5] The non-movant cannot rest on mere allegations or denials in the pleadings, but must produce affirmative evidence through exhibits, declarations, or other admissible materials to establish the existence of a genuine dispute.[^6] A "genuine" dispute is one where the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could find in favor of the non-moving party.[^7] A "material" fact is one that could affect the outcome of the litigation.[^8]

In evaluating a summary judgment motion, the court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and draw all reasonable inferences in that party's favor.[^9] The court's role is not to weigh the evidence or make credibility determinations, but rather to determine whether a trial is necessary.[^10] If the court finds that the movant has carried its burden and the non-movant has failed to establish a genuine dispute of material fact, the court shall grant summary judgment.[^11]

## Specific Legal Standards for Summary Judgment

The general summary judgment standard outlined above applies across a wide range of civil claims and defenses. However, certain substantive areas of law may have more specific standards or requirements that the court must consider.

For example, in an antitrust case alleging monopolization under Section 2 of the Sherman Act,[^12] the court must determine whether the defendant possesses monopoly power in the relevant market and whether it has willfully acquired or maintained that power, as opposed to achieving it through superior products, business acumen, or historic accident.[^13] The court would apply the general summary judgment standard to each of these elements in evaluating whether the plaintiff has raised a genuine dispute of material fact.

Similarly, in a Title VII employment discrimination case, the court must analyze whether the plaintiff has established a prima facie case of discrimination and, if so, whether the defendant has articulated a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the adverse employment action, and whether the plaintiff has demonstrated that the proffered reason is pretextual.[^14] The summary judgment standard would apply to each of these steps in the burden-shifting framework.

## Burdens of Proof and Standards of Review

The allocation of the burden of proof is a critical consideration in summary judgment analysis. As noted above, the movant bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact. However, the ultimate burden of proof on the merits of the claim or defense remains with the party who would bear that burden at trial.[^15]

Additionally, the standard of review applied by the appellate court in reviewing a grant or denial of summary judgment is de novo.[^16] This means that the appellate court will analyze the record and legal issues anew, without deference to the lower court's determination. The de novo standard of review underscores the importance of the summary judgment standard and the court's role in properly applying it.

## Remedies and Outcomes

If the court grants summary judgment, it will enter a final judgment in favor of the movant on the claim or defense at issue.[^17] This judgment is immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.[^18] Conversely, if the court denies summary judgment, the case will proceed to trial on the merits.

It is important to note that summary judgment can be granted in whole or in part.[^19] The court may grant summary judgment on certain claims or defenses, while allowing others to proceed to trial. This partial summary judgment can significantly narrow the scope of the litigation and focus the trial proceedings.

## Conclusion

Summary judgment is a critical procedural mechanism in civil litigation that allows courts to efficiently resolve claims or defenses without the need for a full trial. The well-established standard requires the movant to demonstrate the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact, shifting the burden to the non-moving party to set forth specific facts showing a triable issue. This standard applies across a range of civil claims and defenses, with some variation based on the substantive legal requirements. The allocation of the burden of proof and the de novo standard of appellate review underscore the importance of the summary judgment standard. Ultimately, the granting of summary judgment can lead to a final judgment, while a denial will allow the case to proceed to trial.

[^1]: Fed. R. Civ. P. 56.
[^2]: Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986).
[^3]: Id. at 323.
[^4]: Id. at 324.
[^5]: Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e).
[^6]: Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256 (1986).
[^7]: Id. at 248.
[^8]: Id.
[^9]: Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986).
[^10]: Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249-50.
[^11]: Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).
[^12]: 15 U.S.C. § 2.
[^13]: Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Tech. Servs., Inc., 504 U.S. 451, 481 (1992).
[^14]: McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-04 (1973).
[^15]: Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-23.
[^16]: Tolan v. Cotton, 572 U.S. 650, 656 (2014).
[^17]: Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).
[^18]: 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
[^19]: Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).