Sentences with phrase «deciding motions for summary judgment»

As a result, federal court judges have a stronger personal incentive to grant summary judgment than some of their state court counterparts.93 Finally, federal courts have more resources at their disposal than state courts and are therefore in a better position to invest the significant judicial resources often required to decide a motion for summary judgment.94

If a Georgia appellate court holds that a lawyer, judge or jury made an error during the trial, or that a judge made an error in deciding a motion for summary judgment, the appellate court can reverse the trial court's decision or order a new trial.

Not exact matches

At that time, the plaintiffs — adult stem cell researchers James Sherley and Theresa Deisher — expect to file what's called a motion for summary judgment, which asks that the case be decided without a trial.

If there are no alternative facts submitted by the defendant, the case will be decided at the motion for summary judgment stage.

It examines activity for five judges over the past five years, showing the percentage of cases in which each judge granted or denied summary judgment motions and the average days it takes each judge to decide a case.

A motion to compel isn't a motion for summary judgment, and the judge doesn't need to know the minute details of the case to decide the motion.

[5] In the months following the amendments to Rule 20, it has become a matter of some controversy and uncertainty as to whether it is appropriate for a motion judge to use the new powers conferred by the amended Rule 20 to decide an action on the basis of the evidence presented on a motion for summary judgment.

The first being an initial motion for directions from the judge, the second being the actual argument of the summary judgment motion and the third being a second hearing involving viva voce evidence, should the motions judge decide that oral evidence is necessary.

What this means is that, where issues can be decided and narrowed without a full trial, parties can use summary judgment motions to expedite the resolution of lawsuits, allowing for access to justice in a timely manner.

For this reason, our Rules of Civil Procedure provide for the option of a summary judgment motion, which allows the moving party to proceed «directly» to a judge and make a pitch that this particular case can be decided by a motion judge and does not require a full triFor this reason, our Rules of Civil Procedure provide for the option of a summary judgment motion, which allows the moving party to proceed «directly» to a judge and make a pitch that this particular case can be decided by a motion judge and does not require a full trifor the option of a summary judgment motion, which allows the moving party to proceed «directly» to a judge and make a pitch that this particular case can be decided by a motion judge and does not require a full trial.

As a first - year you're more likely to be involved in preparing depositions, drafting motions for summary judgment, responding to discovery and even helping to decide client strategy.»

In Hryniak, the Supreme Court decided if a judge dismisses a motion for summary judgment, that same judge should preside over the trial in that case.

You can decide for yourself after reading Target's motion for summary judgment and the court's memorandum denying the motion.

[5] Since both motions raise important procedural issues about motions to strike, or stay, summary judgment motions, I have decided to release one set of reasons for both motions.

A motion for summary judgment is a formal request asking the judge overseeing the lawsuit to determine that there is no actual issue of material fact to be decided at trial.

First, on the strict matter of appellate jurisdiction, the Court of Appeals said yes, it had such jurisdiction and in terms of the standard of review, «A district court decides a motion to compel arbitration under the same standard it applies to a motion for summary judgment» and that «the party opposing arbitration is given the benefit of all reasonable doubts and inferences that may arise.»

The increasing use of summary judgment motions to decide straightforward wrongful dismissal actions has resulted in it now being commonplace for a court to grant judgment in a wrongful dismissal action before the expiration of the dismissed employee's reasonable notice period.

When the deadline passed, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment to decide the case in their favor.

In order to succeed in a motion for summary judgment, the moving party must establish that there is «no genuine issue of material fact» and that the case should be decided in favor of the moving party.

With summary trial, there is more flexibility and jurisdiction for the court to grant judgment where «there is sufficient evidence for adjudication,» unless the Court is of the opinion that it would be unjust to decide the issue on the motion.

[38] Both parties submitted that this was an appropriate case to decide by way of their competing motions for summary judgment.

If on a motion for summary judgment, a judge can not dispose of the issues without a trial, it follows that a motion judge would be equally unable to determine, without the benefit of a trial, the issues to be decided on a SLAPP motion.

Five cases decided together raise a number of issues concerning the interpretation of the new Rule 20, including the nature of the test for determining whether or not summary judgment should be granted, the scope and purpose of the new powers that have been given to judges hearing motions for summary judgment, and the types of cases that are amenable to summary judgment.

However, while writing his reasons, the motion judge decided to resolve the motions on a fifth basis: he would grant a notional cross-motion by the respondents for partial summary judgment of their claim for breach of fiduciary duty and order a trial or additional summary judgment motions to prove victimization, harm and causation of harm, and to quantify the individual respondents» damages, if any.

The motion judge granted summary judgment on the second issue, deciding that Williams could not be vicariously liable for Brunning's allegedly defamatory correspondence.