Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of Louis H. Catrett, Deceased v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp.
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
826 F.2d 33 (D.C. Cir. 1987)
Mrs. Catrett (plaintiff) filed suit against Celotex Corp. (defendant) and 14 other corporations, alleging that the asbestos products that the corporations produced and distributed caused the death of her husband. Thirteen defendants filed motions for summary judgment, and the district court granted them all, holding that Catrett had not made any showing that her husband had been exposed to the defendants’ products. Catrett appealed only the grant of summary judgment to Celotex. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reversed, finding that under Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144 (1970), a nonmoving party is not required to respond to a motion for summary judgment until after the moving party has met its burden of showing that there are no genuine issues of material fact. Celotex appealed, and the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the court of appeals had misinterpreted Adickes, and that a moving party is not required to go so far as showing evidence of the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. The case was remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to determine whether the district court had properly granted Celotex’s motion for summary judgment.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Starr, J.)
Dissent (Bork, J.)