Quote:
I'm no legal beagle, but isn't asking for a summary judgment the basic "I believe I'm right, its obvious.." and asking the judge to agree, or not?
And, if the judge rules against, can suit still be brought? And, if suit can be brought, if she turns 21 before it is resolved (that part of the law no longer applies to her) will it get tossed?
|
The magic language under the federal rules and many (most?) state rules for summary judgment is that "there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." In other words, there doesn't have to be evidence taken because everyone agrees what the controlling facts are and it is simply a question of applying the law.
If the judge rules against the motion, the judge can also issue a summary judgment against the moving party. The judge may also deny the motion because there are material factual issues that have to be resolved either through additional discovery or at a trial.
The suit might or might not continue if the plaintiff turns 21 before it is resolved. It might become "moot." There is usually an exception for situations where the event is "capable of repetition, yet evading review." The
Roe v. Wade case someone else mentioned is a classic example. The Supreme Court held that it was unlikely that legal proceedings could be finished within the 9 months a woman was pregnant (probably less than 9 months because most women are at least two months along before they find out they are pregnant). The Court used the magic language I noted and said they would review the case.
In this particular case, there's a three year time period to litigate. In addition, once the plaintiff turns 21, the event (being under age 21) cannot happen again to this plaintiff. In
Roe v. Wade, the same woman could get pregnant again. I don't know know if the suit would become moot or not when the plaintiff turns 21, but those are the issues that would have to be resolved.