• Login
    View Item 
    •   Home
    • Yale Law School Faculty Scholarship
    • Faculty Scholarship Series
    • View Item
    •   Home
    • Yale Law School Faculty Scholarship
    • Faculty Scholarship Series
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Browse

    All of openYLSCommunitiesPublication DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsThis CollectionPublication DateAuthorsTitlesSubjects

    My Account

    LoginRegister

    Statistics

    Display statistics

    The Summary Judgment

    • CSV
    • RefMan
    • EndNote
    • BibTex
    • RefWorks
    Thumbnail
    Name:
    The_Summary_Judgment2.pdf
    Size:
    1.923Mb
    Format:
    PDF
    Download
    Author
    Clark, Charles
    Keyword
    The Summary Judgment
    36 Minnesota Law Review 567 (1952)
    
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    URI
    http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.13051/2626
    Abstract
    The recent spread of the summary judgment procedure in American practice may be traced in substance to the impetus afforded by a simple unheralded New York rule of court of 1921. At that time the Empire State adopted with considerable fanfare a new Civil Practice Act, supposed to include the best features of English procedure, although later experience has shown certain distressing omissions and inconsistencies. The statute did not contain any provision for the summary judgment. The judges, however, in adopting rules of civil practice to supplement the Practice Act set up a rule for the purpose, Rule 113, which, as we now see, has had substantial vogue in that state and elsewhere. Perhaps that experience has some significance as to the potentialities of the rule-making process generally! The model naturally was the English rule which since the middle of the nineteenth century had provided this ready means for disposition of claims on bills of exchange and promissory notes, later extended to all but a few unusual and disfavored actions, such as fraud and libel. It is true that New Jersey had adopted the English provision yet earlier in 1912, and Michigan has had a workable, though limited, act since 1915. And there were still earlier American analogies, such as the motion practice in Virginia, which has long been a means of effective initiation of litigation by motion. Nor is there anything strange in a motion for judgment summarily entered when no defense is shown or when the defense appears to be sham or frivolous. The real step is in the means permitted to demonstrate the sham or false character of the defense, even where it might appear fair on the face of the pleading, through materials outside the pleadings, notably affidavits so particularized as to require like answering affidavits to disclose the genuineness of the issue asserted. The obvious difficulty was the constitutional right of trial by jury. When the constitutionality of the procedure was established in New York, and the success of the new innovation was ably publicized by noteworthy articles," its popularity grew and imitation followed.
    Collections
    Faculty Scholarship Series

    entitlement

     
    DSpace software (copyright © 2002 - 2025)  DuraSpace
    Quick Guide | Contact Us
    Open Repository is a service operated by 
    Atmire NV
     

    Export search results

    The export option will allow you to export the current search results of the entered query to a file. Different formats are available for download. To export the items, click on the button corresponding with the preferred download format.

    By default, clicking on the export buttons will result in a download of the allowed maximum amount of items.

    To select a subset of the search results, click "Selective Export" button and make a selection of the items you want to export. The amount of items that can be exported at once is similarly restricted as the full export.

    After making a selection, click one of the export format buttons. The amount of items that will be exported is indicated in the bubble next to export format.