Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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 ...
Rule 56(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 42 U.S.C. §1983 Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. , 398 U.S. 144 (1970), was a United States Supreme Court case where the majority ruling, written by Justice Harlan , asserted that the burden of showing a lack of factual controversy rests upon the party asserting the summary judgment .
Rule 46 provides that formal "exceptions" to court rulings are no longer necessary so long as a sufficient record is made of the objecting party's position. The next several rules govern jury trials. Rule 47 provides for the selection of jurors and rule 48 governs the number of jurors in a civil case. A civil jury must consist of between six ...
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States involving antitrust law and civil procedure.Authored by Justice David Souter, it established that parallel conduct, absent evidence of agreement, is insufficient to sustain an antitrust action under Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
Volumes of the McKinney's annotated version of the CPLR. The New York Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) is chapter 8 of the Consolidated Laws of New York [1] and governs legal procedure in the Unified Court System such as jurisdiction, venue, and pleadings, as well certain areas of substantive law such as the statute of limitations and joint and several liability. [2]
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986), is a United States Supreme Court case articulating the standard for a trial court to grant summary judgment.Summary judgment will lie when, taking all factual inferences in the non-movant's favor, there exists no genuine issue as to a material fact and the movant deserves judgment as a matter of law.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Rule 56 explains that patents are "affected with a public interest. The public interest is best served, and the most effective patent examination occurs when, at the time an application is being examined, the Office is aware of and evaluates the teachings of all information material to patentability."
The rules are promulgated by the Supreme Court of the United States, pursuant to its statutory authority under the Rules Enabling Act. [1] The Supreme Court must transmit a copy of its rules to the United States Congress no later than May 1 of the year in which they are to go into effect, and the new rule can then become effective no earlier than December 1 of that year.