Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 18,800+ case briefs...

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett

United States Supreme Court
477 U.S. 317, 106 S.Ct. 2548 (1986)


 

Facts

Catrett (plaintiff) sued a number of asbestos manufacturers including Celotex Corp. (defendant) in district court, claiming that her husband died from exposure to the manufacturers' asbestos. Celotex moved for summary judgment on the ground that Catrett failed to present any evidence showing that her husband had been exposed to Celotex’s products. In objection to the summary judgment motion, Catrett submitted three documents that suggested the decedent had been exposed to Celotex’s products. The district court granted summary judgment, because Catrett lacked sufficient evidence to show her husband had been exposed to Celotex asbestos in the District of Columbia or anywhere else. The court of appeals reversed on the ground that Celotex had not offered any evidence to support its motion. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Rehnquist, J.)

Concurrence (White, J.)

Dissent (Brennan, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 499,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 499,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 18,800 briefs, keyed to 985 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions & Answers


didn't really any part of the 2010 amendment to Rule 56 of federal civil procedure affected anything on the case law of the 86 Trilogy?

In the Video the narrator mentions the 86' Trilogy cases that set the bases for rule 56 on summary judgment. Then he continues to mention that even though Rule 56 was amended in 2010 on the Committee Notes on Rules -- from the 2010 Amendment they state unequivocally that this amendment does not change anything on the basis that this case set for Rule 56. Nevertheless, after checking the notes of the Committee on the 2010 amendment of Rule 56 of federal procedure, is not that clearer as the narrator affirms, yes the mention 2 of the 3 cases ( Celotex Corp v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1981) and Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, inc., 477 US. 242, 255 (1986)) and in a way affirm that the intention is not modify what the precedent in that case set. but they are mention separate and they never mention Matsushita v. Zenith.

Want to see this answer?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and get access to all answers in our Q&A database

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial

Tempor minim nulla id mollit ullamco consequat aliquip adipisicing irure officia tempor. Magna sit eiusmod laborum proident laboris ex sunt. Non labore ex officia irure qui et laboris aliqua in minim. Labore velit aliqua proident officia cillum occaecat dolore tempor. Ullamco in consequat labore amet laborum proident reprehenderit anim cillum excepteur. Elit do nostrud nisi excepteur sit dolor pariatur fugiat. Nisi incididunt incididunt do est velit excepteur enim excepteur incididunt mollit pariatur. Irure tempor non in esse do. Laboris eiusmod in ad ut enim est duis ad sint veniam eiusmod. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt.