Products liability/asbestos suit. Supreme court said that defendant’s motion was a sufficient initial motion. Celetex said that the moving party doesn’t have to negate the claims of the non-moving party; all they have to say is that the non-moving party has not conclusively established an essential element of their claim. This is a “put up or shut up” motion. Their decision overruled Adickes in part and said that the moving party doesn’t have to disprove plaintiff’s claim; they just have to point to an absence of the evidence of a material element in the plaintiff’s case. The moving party’s motion says “Plaintiff hasn’t proven we did it” as opposed to “We didn’t do it.” The dissent and concurrence are important here. This case gets remanded to the district court and this time the court focuses on whether or not the plaintiff’s response was sufficient to overcome the motion for summary judgment filed by the defendant.
We have located some similar legal questions and legal question categories. Check out these challenging questions that askquestions about Civil Procedure Cases and are similar to In the Celetex case, what was the holding?. Also, we have included a list of some of our more popular legal question categories. These categories are based on what everyone is asking and answering.