Motion for Summary Judgment/Partial Summary Judgment in Colorado

What is a Motion for Summary Judgment/Partial Summary Judgment

Background

“Summary judgment is appropriate when there are no genuine material factual issues and the moving party is legally entitled to judgment.” (See Tognoni v. Tognoni (2011) 313 P.3d 655, 658.)

“Summary judgment is a drastic remedy, however, and should be granted only when these requirements are clearly met.” (See id; AviComm, Inc. v. Colo. Pub. Utils. Comm'n (1998) 955 P.2d 1023, 1029.)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

“Summary judgment is properly entered only if the facts are clear and undisputed.” (See Roderick v. City of Colorado Springs (1977) 193 Colo. 104, 563 P.2d 3; Cooper v. Peoples Bank and Trust Co. (1986) 725 P.2d 78, 80.)

“Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings and supporting documentation demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (See C.R.C.P. 56(c); Martini v. Smith (2002) 42 P.3d 629, 632; Settle v. Basinger (2013) 411 P.3d 717, 726.)

"The nonmoving party is entitled to the benefit of all favorable inferences from the undisputed facts, and all doubts as to the existence of a triable issue of fact must be resolved against the moving party." (See Settle v. Basinger (2013) 411 P.3d 717, 726.)

“Arguments and allegations alone are not sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact. Instead, the party opposing summary judgment must set forth by affidavit, or otherwise, specific facts that demonstrate a genuine issue of fact.” (See id; People in Interest of A.C. (2007) 170 P.3d 844, 846.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“An appellate court reviews the trial court's order granting summary judgment de novo.” (See Georg v. Metro Fixtures Contractors, Inc. (2008) 178 P.3d 1209, 1212; Tognoni v. Tognoni (2011) 313 P.3d 655, 658.)

“The moving party bears the initial burden of providing the basis for the motion and identifying those portions of the record and any affidavits that demonstrate there is not a genuine issue of material fact.” (See Olson v. State Farm Mutual (2007) 174 P.3d 849, 853; Cont'l Air Lines, Inc. v. Keenan (1987) 731 P.2d 708, 712.)

“Whether a genuine issue of material fact exists is a question of law.” (See Olson v. State Farm Mutual (2007) 174 P.3d 849, 853; Churchey v. Adolph Corns Co. (1988) 759 P.2d 1336, 1340.)

The Court’s Decisions

It is well settled that “summary judgment permits the parties to pierce the formal allegations of the pleadings and save the time and expense involved in a trial when, as a matter of law and based on undisputed facts, one party could not prevail.” (See People v. Gargano (2012) 306 P.3d 109, 111.)

It is well settled that “the burden of establishing the nonexistence of a genuine issue of material fact is on the moving party. This burden is satisfied by demonstrating that there is an absence of evidence in the record to support the nonmoving party's case.” (See id.)

Dockets for Motion for Summary Judgment/Partial Summary Judgment in Colorado

Sort By

Cimarron Canal And Reservoir Company v. Cimarron And Uncompahgre Valley Canal An et al

4 Files

Filed

May 07, 2024

Judge

Hon. J Steven Patrick

Court

Gunnison County

County

Gunnison County, CO

Case #