View source for Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.

{{Use mdy dates|date=September 2023}}
{{Infobox SCOTUS case
|Litigants=Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
|ArgueDate=December 3
|ArgueYear=1985
|DecideDate=June 25
|DecideYear=1986
|FullName=Jack Anderson, et al. v. Liberty Lobby, Incorporated, et al.
|USVol=477
|USPage=242
|ParallelCitations=106 S. Ct. 2505; 91 [[L. Ed. 2d]] 202; 1986 [[U.S. LEXIS]] 115; 54 U.S.L.W. 4755; 4 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 1041; 12 Media L. Rep. 2297
|Prior=
|Subsequent=
|Holding=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.
|Majority=White
|JoinMajority=Marshall, Blackmun, Powell, Stevens, O'Connor
|Dissent=Brennan
|Dissent2=Rehnquist
|JoinDissent2=Burger
|LawsApplied=[[Federal Rules of Civil Procedure|Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure]]
}}
'''''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.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Steinman |first1=Adam|date= March 27, 2016|title=The Rise and Fall of Plausibility Pleading? |journal=Vanderbilt Law Review |volume=69 |issue=333 |pages=68 |ssrn=2753142}}</ref>
==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 (columnist)|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==
*''[[Celotex Corp. v. Catrett]]'' (1986), another major case on summary judgment under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
== References ==
{{reflist|2}}
== External links ==
*{{caselaw source
| case=''Anderson v. Liberty Lobby'', {{Ussc|477|242|1986|el=no}}
| googlescholar = https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9272001251064530131
| justia=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/477/242/
| findlaw=https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/477/242.html
| loc =http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep477/usrep477242/usrep477242.pdf
}}
[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases]]
[[Category:United States summary judgment case law]]
[[Category:1986 in United States case law]]
[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases of the Burger Court]]