Celotex Corp. v. Catrett
| Celotex Corp. v. Catrett | |
|---|---|
| Argued April 1, 1986 Decided June 25, 1986 | |
| Full case name | Celotex Corporation v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of Catrett |
| Citations | 477 U.S. 317 (more) 106 S. Ct. 2548; 91 L. Ed. 2d 265; 1986 U.S. LEXIS 118; 54 U.S.L.W. 4775; 4 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 1024 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Cert. to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit |
| Holding | |
| A party moving for summary judgment show only that the opposing party lacks evidence sufficient to support its case. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Rehnquist, joined by White, Marshall, Powell, O'Connor |
| Concurrence | White |
| Dissent | Brennan, joined by Burger, Blackmun |
| Dissent | Stevens |
| Laws applied | |
| Rule 56(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure | |
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court. Written by Associate Justice William Rehnquist, the decision of the Court held that a party moving for summary judgment need show only that the opposing party lacks evidence sufficient to support its case. A broader version of that doctrine was later formally added to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Celotex was one of a "trilogy" of U.S. Supreme Court decisions on summary judgment issued in 1986, the other two being Anderson v. Liberty Lobby and Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.. Within 20 years these three became the most-cited Supreme Court decisions in the U.S. federal court system.