Celotex Corp. v. Catrett :: 477 U.S. 317 (1986) :: Justia

CELOTEX CORP. v. CATRETT | 477 U.S. 317 | U.S. | Judgment celotex corp. v. catrett In September 1980, respondent administratrix filed this wrongful-death action in Federal District Court, alleging that her husband's death in 1979 resulted from his exposure to asbestos products manufactured or distributed by the defendants, who included petitioner corporation. Celotex Corporation v. Catrett case brief 2011-10-14 · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett SCOTUS -1986 (477 U.S. 317) Facts: P claimed that her husband died because of exposure to D's asbestos products. D filed for summary judgment in District Court arguing that P had failed to produce any evidence that any of the D's products were the proximate cause of the injuries. Celotex Corp v. Catrett - Case Brief for Law Students Celotex Corp v. Catrett. Citation. 477 U.S. 317, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265, 1986 U.S. 118. Brief Fact Summary. The Respondent, Catrett (Respondent), filed suit alleging that the death of her husband resulted from his exposure to products containing asbestos manufactured or distributed by 15 named corporations, including the Petitioner Celotex Corporation v. Catrett | Oyez

Catrett v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp.

4. In opposing this motion, Mrs. Catrett relied primarily on three documents which, she claimed, "demonstrate that there is a genuine material factual dispute"4 as to whether Mr. Catrett had ever been exposed to Celotex asbestos products.5 The documents were a copy of the transcript of her husband's July 17, 1979, deposition taken for use in proceedings in his earlier workman's compensation May 18, 2018 · Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 326 (1986) (“[D]istrict courts are widely acknowledged to possess the power to enter summary judgments , so long as :

The Supreme Court explained in Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986), that a party can obtain for summary judgment when its opponent has no evidence to support an element of the opponent’s case. Justice Brennan’s dissent warned then that the opinion would “create confusion” among district courts.

Catrett v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp.