REQUIREMENTS OF REVIEW
Two criteria of review govern this instance. First, we review the “district court’s evidentiary rulings at the summary judgment stage limited to punishment of discretion.” Wright v. Farouk Sys., Inc., 701 F.3d 907, 910 (11th Cir. 2012). Under this standard, “we must affirm unless we realize that the region court has made a definite mistake of judgment, or has used the incorrect legal standard.” Knight ex rel. Kerr v. Miami-Dade Cty., 856 F.3d 795, 808 (11th Cir. 2017) (interior quote markings omitted).
2nd, we review the region court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, using the exact same standards that are legal the district court. Information. Sys. & Networks Corp. v. City of Atlanta, 281 F.3d 1220, 1224 (11th Cir. 2002). Summary judgment is suitable “if the movant reveals that there is absolutely no dispute that is genuine to virtually any product reality as well as the movant is eligible for judgment as a matter of legislation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “Once the movant acceptably supports its movement, the duty shifts to your nonmoving celebration to exhibit that specific facts occur that https://badcreditloanshelp.net/payday-loans-pa/waynesboro/ raise an authentic problem for trial.” Dietz v. Smithkline Beecham Corp., 598 F.3d 812, 815 (11th Cir. 2010). If the non-movant’s proof is “not somewhat probative,” summary judgment is acceptable. Stephens v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., 749 F.3d 1318, 1321 (11th Cir. 2014) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249-50 (1986)). All facts and reasonable inferences needs to be built in benefit regarding the party that is nonmoving. (more…)
