Anderson v. Liberty Lobby
Primary source
Background below is sourced from Wikipedia (CC BY-SA 4.0). We link back to the source for attribution; edits made by Wikipedia editors after our last scrape may not appear here.
Background
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Anderson v. Liberty Lobby )
1986 United States Supreme Court case
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986), is a United States Supreme Court case articulating the standard for a trial court to grant summary judgment . Summary judgment will lie when, taking all factual inferences in the non-movant's favor, there exists no genuine issue as to a material fact and the movant deserves judgment as a matter of law. Because courts almost always cite Liberty Lobby in their opinions for the standard regarding motions for summary judgment, Liberty Lobby is the most cited Supreme Court case.
Background
[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anderson_v._Liberty_Lobby,_Inc.&action=edit§ion=1 "Edit section: Background")
]
The Investigator, an investigative news magazine, published three articles about the Liberty Lobby , calling the organization and its founder Willis Carto antisemitic, racist and Fascist. Liberty Lobby and Carto sued Investigator Publishing and its publisher, journalist Jack Anderson for libel . The defendants moved for summary judgment under the standard set by _New York Times Co. v. Sullivan _, which requires a plaintiff to prove with clear and convincing evidence that a defamatory statement was made with actual malice . The District Court ruled that The Investigator had duly researched its statements and granted the motion. Summary judgment was reversed on appeal with respect to some of the alleged defamatory statements, with the Court of Appeals stating that evidence need not be clear and convincing for the purpose of summary judgment.
A majority of the Supreme Court held that when a "clear and convincing" standard applies, it applies as well to summary judgment. It vacated the Court of Appeals' ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings. Justices Rehnquist, Burger and (separately) Brennan dissented on the grounds that the Court's reasoning was too abstract to provide the necessary guidance to lower courts.
See also
[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anderson_v._Liberty_Lobby,_Inc.&action=edit§ion=2 "Edit section: See also")
]
- _Celotex Corp. v. Catrett _ (1986), another major case on summary judgment under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anderson_v._Liberty_Lobby,_Inc.&action=edit§ion=3 "Edit section: References")
]
- ↑ Steinman, Adam (March 27, 2016). "The Rise and Fall of Plausibility Pleading?". Vanderbilt Law Review. 69 (333): 68. SSRN 2753142 .
External links
[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anderson_v._Liberty_Lobby,_Inc.&action=edit§ion=4 "Edit section: External links")
]
- Text of Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (1986) is available from: Findlaw Google Scholar Internet Archive (docket files) Justia Library of Congress
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anderson_v._Liberty_Lobby,_Inc.&oldid=1351351130 "
Hidden categories:
Search
Search
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
Add languages Add topic
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the holding in Anderson v. Liberty Lobby?+
"summary judgment will not lie if the dispute about a material fact is 'genuine,' that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party."
Sourced from Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. | 477 U.S. 242 (1986)
What was the summary judgment in the Anderson case?+
Anderson moved for summary judgment, and the district court granted the motion. The appellate court held that Liberty Lobby need not demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that a jury could find Anderson acted with actual malice and was liable for libel.
Sourced from Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) - Quimbee
Related searches
- Anderson v Liberty Lobby, Inc case brief
- Anderson v Liberty Lobby, Inc, 477 U.S. 242
- Anderson v liberty lobby oyez
- Tolan v Cotton
- Matsushita v Zenith
- Tolan v Cotton case brief
- Matsushita summary judgment
- Adickes v kress
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.