Can you clarify?
I am trying to understand how this works. If I take everyones word from here and the appellet lawyers I talked to I come up with this which seems like a mess.
If a trial court judge makes a summery judgment in favor of the defendant and in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and the court of Appeal is supposed to only look at the law and not the facts, then what happens to the disputed facts? Is the rulling by the trial court judge now set in stone and off the table? How can a case be looked at De Novo in appeal if they do not reconsidering facts?
Assuming both sides find supporting case law for an appeal, what side is the court of appeals supposed to view then?
Re: Can you clarify?
As the other lawyers have explained, summary judgment can be granted only when there is no actual dispute as to any facts that matter to the legal resolution of the lawsuit. In legalese, the facts that matter to the resolution are called �material� facts. Sometimes, there are indeed disputed facts, but the dispute over the facts does not matter (is not material), meaning that the lawsuit is resolved based on something other than a determination (a trial) on whose version on the disputed facts is the correct one. If that is so, then summary judgment is proper because a �trial� on the disputed facts is not necessary. At other times, the dispute over the alleged fact dispute might be material, but the dispute is not �actual� (in a legal sense), because the party who has to prove the alleged facts (usually, the plaintiff) does not have and could not come up with the needed evidence to prove the truth of the facts that are alleged. In that situation, too, summary judgment is proper because a full blown trial would be a waste of time and resources. In making the decision of whether there is a �material� dispute which is �actual� that requires a full trial, the court gives the plaintiff, the benefit of any doubt (i.e., decides "in the light most favorable to the plaintiff").
When a summary judgment is appealed, the appeal tribunal reviews the lower court�s decision �de novo� (anew) which means the appeal court determines whose position was correct in the summary judgment proceedings without giving any deference to the decision of the lower court judge. If on appeal, it is determined that there is, or could be, an actual disputed fact issue present in the case that is �material� to a fair resolution of the lawsuit, the summary judgment will be overturned, and the lawsuit can then proceed to a full "trial" of the disputed facts.
Re: Can you clarify?
As the other lawyers have explained, summary judgment can be granted only when there is no actual dispute as to any facts that matter to the legal resolution of the lawsuit. In legalese, the facts that matter to the resolution are called �material� facts. Sometimes, there are indeed disputed facts, but the dispute over the facts does not matter (is not material), meaning that the lawsuit is resolved based on something other than a determination (a trial) on whose version on the disputed facts is the correct one. If that is so, then summary judgment is proper because a �trial� on the disputed facts is not necessary. At other times, the dispute over the alleged fact dispute might be material, but the dispute is not �actual� (in a legal sense), because the party who has to prove the alleged facts (usually, the plaintiff) does not have and could not come up with the needed evidence to prove the truth of the facts that are alleged. In that situation, too, summary judgment is proper because a full blown trial would be a waste of time and resources. In making the decision of whether there is a �material� dispute which is �actual� that requires a full trial, the court gives the plaintiff, the benefit of any doubt (i.e., decides "in the light most favorable to the plaintiff").
When a summary judgment is appealed, the appeal tribunal reviews the lower court�s decision �de novo� (anew) which means the appeal court determines whose position was correct in the summary judgment proceedings without giving any deference to the decision of the lower court judge. If on appeal, it is determined that there is, or could be, an actual disputed fact issue present in the case that is �material� to a fair resolution of the lawsuit, the summary judgment will be overturned, and the lawsuit can then proceed to a full "trial" of the disputed facts.
Re: Can you clarify?
As the other lawyers have explained, summary judgment can be granted only when there is no actual dispute as to any facts that matter to the legal resolution of the lawsuit. In legalese, the facts that matter to the resolution are called �material� facts. Sometimes, there are indeed disputed facts, but the dispute over the facts does not matter (is not material), meaning that the lawsuit is resolved based on something other than a determination (a trial) on whose version on the disputed facts is the correct one. If that is so, then summary judgment is proper because a �trial� on the disputed facts is not necessary. At other times, the dispute over the alleged fact dispute might be material, but the dispute is not �actual� (in a legal sense), because the party who has to prove the alleged facts (usually, the plaintiff) does not have and could not come up with the needed evidence to prove the truth of the facts that are alleged. In that situation, too, summary judgment is proper because a full blown trial would be a waste of time and resources. In making the decision of whether there is a �material� dispute which is �actual� that requires a full trial, the court gives the plaintiff, the benefit of any doubt (i.e., decides "in the light most favorable to the plaintiff").
When a summary judgment is appealed, the appeal tribunal reviews the lower court�s decision �de novo� (anew) which means the appeal court determines whose position was correct in the summary judgment proceedings without giving any deference to the decision of the lower court judge. If on appeal, it is determined that there is, or could be, an actual disputed fact issue present in the case that is �material� to a fair resolution of the lawsuit, the summary judgment will be overturned, and the lawsuit can then proceed to a full "trial" of the disputed facts.
Re: Can you clarify?
As the other lawyers have explained, summary judgment can be granted only when there is no actual dispute as to any facts that matter to the legal resolution of the lawsuit. In legalese, the facts that matter to the resolution are called �material� facts. Sometimes, there are indeed disputed facts, but the dispute over the facts does not matter (is not material), meaning that the lawsuit is resolved based on something other than a determination (a trial) on whose version on the disputed facts is the correct one. If that is so, then summary judgment is proper because a �trial� on the disputed facts is not necessary. At other times, the dispute over the alleged fact dispute might be material, but the dispute is not �actual� (in a legal sense), because the party who has to prove the alleged facts (usually, the plaintiff) does not have and could not come up with the needed evidence to prove the truth of the facts that are alleged. In that situation, too, summary judgment is proper because a full blown trial would be a waste of time and resources. In making the decision of whether there is a �material� dispute which is �actual� that requires a full trial, the court gives the plaintiff, the benefit of any doubt (i.e., decides "in the light most favorable to the plaintiff").
When a summary judgment is appealed, the appeal tribunal reviews the lower court�s decision �de novo� (anew) which means the appeal court determines whose position was correct in the summary judgment proceedings without giving any deference to the decision of the lower court judge. If on appeal, it is determined that there is, or could be, an actual disputed fact issue present in the case that is �material� to a fair resolution of the lawsuit, the summary judgment will be overturned, and the lawsuit can then proceed to a full "trial" of the disputed facts.
