Celotex Corp. v. Catrett
| Celotex Corp. v. Catrett | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued April 1, 1986 Decided June 25, 1986 |
|
| Full case name | Celotex Corporation v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of Catrett |
| Citations | 477 U.S. 317 (more)
106 S. Ct. 2548; 91 L. Ed. 2d 265; 1986 U.S. LEXIS 118; 54 U.S.L.W. 4775; 4 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 1024
|
| Prior history | Cert. to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit |
| Holding | |
| A party moving for summary judgment need only show that the opposing party lacks evidence sufficient to support its case. | |
| Court membership | |
|
|
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Rehnquist, joined by White, Marshall, Powell, O'Connor |
| Concurrence | White |
| Dissent | Brennan, joined by Burger, Blackmun |
| Dissent | Stevens |
| Laws applied | |
| 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 then-Associate Justice William Rehnquist. In Celotex, the Court held that a party moving for summary judgment need only show that the opposing party lacks evidence sufficient to support its case.
In September 1980, Catrett (respondent-plaintiff) sued fifteen asbestos manufacturers and distributors—including Celotex (petitioner-defendant)—in United States District Court for the District of Columbia, on the basis of evidence alleging that her husband, Louis H. Catrett, died in 1979 of health effects of exposure to asbestos manufactured or distributed by the defendants. Catrett sought recovery for claims arising from negligence, breach of warranty, and strict liability on the part of the defendant corporations.
Two of the defendants filed motions for dismissal for lack of in personam jurisdiction. The district court granted the motions and the remaining thirteen defendant corporations including Celotex filed motions for summary judgment on other grounds. Celotex filed its motion in September 1981 and argued that summary judgment was proper because Catrett had failed to produce evidence that any of Celotex's products were the proximate cause of damages within the jurisdictional limits of the court. Celotex noted that in interrogatories, Catrett had failed to identify any witnesses who could testify to her husband's exposure to Celotex's products. Catrett then sought to enter into evidence three documents: a transcript of a deposition of decedent, a letter from one of decedent's former employers whom petitioner planned to call as a trial witness, and a letter from an official of an insurance company to Catrett's attorney. Catrett alleged that each of the documents tended to establish that the decedent had been exposed to Celotex's asbestos products in Chicago during 1970-1971. Celotex objected to the evidence, arguing that the three documents were hearsay and therefore could not be considered in opposition to Celotex's motion for summary judgment. The district court sustained Celotex's objection to the evidence.
...
Wikipedia