Celotex Corp. v. Catrett

In Adickes, the affidavits and other evidence submitted by the defendants were held to be insufficient to "prove the negative" - that is, that there was not a police officer in the store who directly or indirectly could have communicated with store employees to see that service was denied on the basis of race. In that case, however, the defendants had set out to 'prove the negative' of there being no communication between the police and the store employees, but had failed to close the net around all the possibilities.

After Adickes, some courts and commentators believed that those seeking summary judgment could only win if they met the burden of proving the negative. Others disagreed, and argued that defendants could, or should, be able to meet their burden under Rule 56 by showing that the plaintiff would not have evidence at trial to prove all the essential facts.

This is the issue addressed in Celotex. Whether or not it changed the law (there continues to be disagreement on this), it certainly made clear what the law would be going forward in a way that has vastly increased attempts to gain summary judgment.