Summary Judgment: Briefs

Liberty Northwest v. Montana State Fund In Re: Mitchell [02/01/08] 2008 MTWCC 10 Not only are summary judgment motions typically disfavored by this Court, but ARM 24.5.329(1)(b), specifically provides that where the Court concludes the issues may be resolved as expeditiously at trial, it may decline to consider motions for summary judgment. Where no less than seventeen substantive briefs have been filed in multiple motions for summary judgment, the Court is at a loss to think of a better application of this rule.
Ahearn v. Montana Schools Group WC Risk Retention Program [4/30] 2004 MTWCC 40 Court rules require the party moving for summary judgment to set out a statement of facts supported by citations to admissible evidence. The failure to do so is grounds for summarily denying the motion.
Geery v. Travelers [10/15/02] 2002 MTWCC 46 Partial summary judgment inappropriate and premature where significant legal issue connected to ground advanced for partial summary judgment has not been briefed by either party.
Galetti v. Montana Power Company [10/19/98] 1998 MTWCC 75 Where petitioner filed a motion for summary judgment using a factual narrative, and has attached numerous documents without specifying the source of the document's authenticity, the motion is denied for failure to comply with Court rules. ARM 24.5.329 requires that facts supporting a motion for summary judgment be set forth in serial fashion, not in narrative form, and that the motion include reference to a specific pleadings, affidavit, or other document where the fact may be found. This rule exists for a purpose. It enables the opposing party to identify each specific fact it disputes and allows the Court to quickly determine facts without sorting through long factual narratives. Future motions with this defect will be summarily denied.