New! H2O now has access to new and up-to-date cases via CourtListener and the Caselaw Access Project. Click here for more info.

Main Content

Casebook Read Credits
US Civil Procedure for International Students: 2020 - 2021 Edition
Resource 14 . 5 . 5
26 minutes

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett

Ray Worthy Campbell

In Adickes, the affidavits and other evidence submitted by the defendants were held to be insufficient to "prove the negative" - that is, that there was not a police officer in the store who directly or indirectly could have communicated with store employees to see that service was denied on the basis of race. In that case, however, the defendants had set out to 'prove the negative' of there being no communication between the police and the store employees, but had failed to close the net around all the possibilities.

After Adickes, some courts and commentators believed that those seeking summary judgment could only win if they met the burden of proving the negative. Others disagreed, and argued that defendants could, or should, be able to meet their burden under Rule 56 by showing that the plaintiff would not have evidence at trial to prove all the essential facts.

This is the issue addressed in Celotex. Whether or not it changed the law (there continues to be disagreement on this), it certainly made clear what the law would be going forward in a way that has vastly increased attempts to gain summary judgment.

Supreme Court of the United States
477 U.S. 317, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 1986 U.S. LEXIS 118, SCDB 1985-128
No. 85-198
1986-06-25

This book, and all H2O books, are Creative Commons licensed for sharing and re-use with the exception of certain excerpts. Any excerpts from the Restatements of the Law, Principles of the Law, and the Model Penal Code are copyright by The American Law Institute. Excerpts are reproduced with permission, not as part of a Creative Commons license.