Issue: Whether North Dakota law provides that summary judgment is the appropriate device to resolve a matter where there are issues of material fact.
|Area of Law:||Litigation & Procedure|
|Keywords:||Summary judgment; Genuine issues of material fact|
|Cited Cases:||256 N.W.2d 355; 409 P.2d 627; 688 N.W.2d 389; 618 N.W.2d 175; 956 P.2d 123; 658 N.W.2d 750; 764 N.W.2d 665; 544 N.W.2d 127; 723 N.W.2d 409; 477 N.W.2d 225|
Summary judgment is a procedural device for the prompt resolution of a controversy on the merits, without the need for a full trial, to be used only when there are no genuine issues of material fact or inferences that can reasonably be drawn from undisputed facts, or when the only issues to be resolved are questions of law. Hasper v. Center Mut. Ins. Co., 723 N.W.2d 409, 410 (N.D. 2006) (citations omitted), cited in Farmers Union Oil Co. v. Smetana, 764 N.W.2d 665, 669 (N.D. 2009). The party moving for summary judgment has the burden of showing both that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Hasper, 723 N.W.2d at 410; Smetana, 764 N.W.2d at 669; see also Skjervem v. Minot State Univ., 658 N.W.2d 750 (N.D. 2003) (similarly stating that the party seeking summary judgment has the burden of establishing that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that, under applicable principles of substantive law, the party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law). The court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and that party must be given the benefit of all favorable inferences that can reasonably be drawn from the record. Id.
When considering a motion for summary judgment, the court’s role is limited to determining whether the evidence and […]