Dissent in Celotex Corp. v. Catrett
477 U.S. 317 (1986) (1986) · Supreme Court of the United States
Celotex clarified the burden on a moving party seeking summary judgment under Federal Rule 56. It held that the moving party does not bear the initial burden of producing evidence negating the nonmovant's claim; rather, it need only point out the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. This decision, part of the 'summary judgment trilogy,' made summary judgment significantly easier to obtain.
What was the dissent in Celotex Corp. v. Catrett?
Justice Brennan dissented in part, arguing that the moving party should at minimum be required to review the nonmovant's case and affirmatively demonstrate that the nonmovant lacks evidence. He worried that the majority's approach made it too easy for defendants to shift the burden to plaintiffs at the summary judgment stage.
Case Overview
Facts
Maryann Catrett brought a wrongful death action against Celotex Corporation and other asbestos manufacturers, alleging that her husband's death from asbestos exposure resulted from the defendants' products. Celotex moved for summary judgment, arguing that Catrett had failed to produce evidence that her husband had been exposed to Celotex's asbestos products. Celotex did not submit affirmative evidence negating exposure; it merely pointed to the absence of evidence in the record supporting Catrett's claim.
Majority Holding
The Supreme Court held that the moving party need not produce evidence negating the nonmovant's claim. A party seeking summary judgment may discharge its initial burden by pointing out to the court the absence of evidence supporting an essential element of the nonmovant's case on which the nonmovant bears the burden of proof at trial. Once this showing is made, the burden shifts to the nonmovant to come forward with specific facts demonstrating a genuine issue for trial.
Majority Reasoning
Justice Rehnquist's majority opinion reasoned that Rule 56 mandates the entry of summary judgment against a party who fails to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of their case on which they bear the burden of proof. The moving party's burden is not to produce evidence negating the opponent's case but to inform the court of the basis for the motion and identify those portions of the record that demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. The plain language of Rule 56 does not require the moving party to support the motion with affidavits or other similar materials negating the opponent's claim. The Court emphasized that summary judgment should be granted more readily to avoid unnecessary trials.
The Dissenting Opinion
Justice Brennan dissented in part, arguing that the moving party should at minimum be required to review the nonmovant's case and affirmatively demonstrate that the nonmovant lacks evidence. He worried that the majority's approach made it too easy for defendants to shift the burden to plaintiffs at the summary judgment stage.
Key Quotes
“The plain language of Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.”
“The moving party bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of 'the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,' which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.”
“One of the principal purposes of the summary judgment rule is to isolate and dispose of factually unsupported claims or defenses.”
Impact and Legacy
Celotex, along with Anderson v. Liberty Lobby and Matsushita v. Zenith (the 'summary judgment trilogy'), transformed summary judgment from a disfavored procedural device into a routine and powerful tool for disposing of cases before trial. The decision significantly reduced the burden on moving parties and increased the use of summary judgment motions across federal litigation. It is particularly consequential in cases where the plaintiff bears the burden of proof, as defendants can obtain summary judgment simply by highlighting evidentiary gaps.
Exam Relevance
Celotex is heavily tested as part of the summary judgment trilogy. Students must know the burden-shifting framework: the moving party's initial burden (pointing out absence of evidence) and the nonmovant's responsive burden (producing specific facts showing a genuine dispute). Exam questions often ask students to determine whether a party has met its summary judgment burden and whether the opposing party has raised a genuine issue of material fact.
Study Tips
- Understand the burden-shifting framework: the movant points to the absence of evidence, and the nonmovant must then come forward with specific facts showing a genuine dispute.
- Distinguish Celotex (burden of the moving party) from Anderson (what constitutes a genuine dispute) and Matsushita (standard for evaluating the evidence).
- Know that the movant's burden depends on who bears the burden of proof at trial: if the nonmovant bears the trial burden, the movant need only point to the absence of evidence.
- Be able to apply the trilogy together: use Celotex for the initial burden, Anderson for the materiality and genuineness analysis, and Matsushita for the rational inference requirement.
Read the Full Case Analysis
View the complete brief for Celotex Corp. v. Catrett including full reasoning, doctrine, and study resources.
More Civil Procedure Dissents
Pennoyer v. Neff
95 U.S. 714 (1878) (1878)
Justice Hunt dissented, arguing that the Oregon statute authorizing service by publication was a valid exercise of state legislative power and that the procedure followed was sufficient to confer jurisdiction over nonresidents with property in the state.
World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson
444 U.S. 286 (1980) (1980)
Justice Brennan dissented, arguing that the majority's approach was too restrictive and that the defendants placed their products into the stream of commerce knowing they might reach any state. He contended that when a product causes injury in a forum state, the interests of the state and the injured plaintiff should weigh heavily in the jurisdictional analysis.
Daimler AG v. Bauman
571 U.S. 117 (2014) (2014)
Justice Sotomayor concurred in the judgment but disagreed with the majority's 'at home' test. She argued that the majority's approach was too restrictive and that the Court should have resolved the case by holding that the exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable, rather than by narrowing the general jurisdiction test itself.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California
582 U.S. 255 (2017) (2017)
Justice Sotomayor dissented, arguing that BMS's extensive activities in California, combined with its nationwide marketing of Plavix, created sufficient contacts for specific jurisdiction. She warned that the decision would impede the efficient resolution of mass tort litigation by preventing plaintiffs from consolidating their claims in a single forum.
Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court
592 U.S. 351 (2021) (2021)
Justice Gorsuch concurred in the judgment but wrote separately, joined by Justice Thomas, questioning the majority's reliance on the 'relate to' language. He argued that the majority's approach was vague and suggested that the original understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment might support a broader basis for jurisdiction. Justice Barrett took no part in the decision.
Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins
304 U.S. 64 (1938) (1938)
Justice Butler dissented, joined by Justice McReynolds, arguing that the question of overruling Swift had not been briefed or argued by the parties and that the doctrine of stare decisis counseled against overturning nearly a century of precedent without full adversarial consideration.