Abstract
In Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., the United States Supreme Court considered whether a higher burden of proof under substantive law requires a judge to use a correspondingly higher standard for deciding whether to grant summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court, consistent with the trend of its recent decisions, broadened the interpretation of summary judgment under Rule 56 by holding that the determination of whether a given factual dispute requires submission to a jury is a question governed by the substantive evidentiary standards applicable to the case at bar.
This Comment analyzes the language of Rule 56 and examines the state of the caselaw dealing with the appropriate standard for granting summary judgment prior to the Anderson decision. It then discusses some of the policy considerations courts face while ruling on summary judgment motions. Finally, this Comment suggests that the scope of the Anderson decision is not limited to first amendment cases, but extends to all areas in which Rule 56 is applicable.
How to Cite
30 Ariz. L. Rev. 171 (1988)
39
Views
182
Downloads