Legal Definitions - genuine issue of material fact

A genuine issue of material fact refers to a significant and real disagreement between the parties in a lawsuit about a fact that is crucial to the outcome of the case. For an issue of fact to be "material," it must be legally relevant, meaning that resolving the dispute over this fact could change who wins or loses the case.

The disagreement must also be "genuine," meaning it is plausible and supported by some evidence, not just a baseless assertion or a far-fetched claim. If a judge finds that a genuine issue of material fact exists, it means there's a real dispute about what happened, and a trial is necessary for a jury (or a judge in a bench trial) to hear the evidence, weigh its credibility, and decide which version of the facts is true. This concept is particularly important in preventing a judge from granting a "summary judgment," which is a decision made without a full trial.

Here are a few examples to illustrate this concept:

• Example 1: Contract Dispute Over Delivery Date

  Imagine a software development company (DevCo) sues a client (ClientCorp) for non-payment, claiming they delivered the software on time according to their contract. ClientCorp, however, argues that DevCo delivered the software two months late, causing them significant financial losses, and therefore they are not obligated to pay the full amount. DevCo presents its internal delivery logs showing an on-time completion, while ClientCorp provides project management records and email correspondence indicating a two-month delay.

  How it illustrates the term: The delivery date of the software is a material fact because it directly impacts whether DevCo fulfilled its contractual obligations and whether ClientCorp owes payment. There is a genuine issue because both parties have presented plausible evidence (delivery logs vs. project records/emails) supporting their conflicting claims. A judge cannot simply decide who is right without a trial to assess the evidence and witness testimony, making summary judgment inappropriate.

• Example 2: Car Accident Fault

  Consider a lawsuit where a pedestrian (Ms. Chen) sues a driver (Mr. Davis) for injuries sustained in a crosswalk. Ms. Chen claims Mr. Davis ran a red light. Mr. Davis, conversely, claims he had a green light and Ms. Chen stepped into the crosswalk against the "Don't Walk" signal. Ms. Chen provides a witness statement from another pedestrian supporting her claim. Mr. Davis presents dashcam footage from a different angle that he argues shows the light was green for him, along with his own testimony.

  How it illustrates the term: The color of the traffic light at the time of the collision and whether Ms. Chen was in the crosswalk legally are material facts because they determine who was at fault for the accident and thus who is liable for damages. There is a genuine issue because both parties offer conflicting, plausible evidence (witness statement vs. dashcam footage and testimony) regarding these critical facts. A jury would need to weigh this evidence and the credibility of the witnesses to determine fault, preventing a judge from ruling without a trial.

• Example 3: Employment Discrimination

  An employee (Mr. Lee) sues his former employer (Acme Corp) for wrongful termination, alleging he was fired due to age discrimination. Acme Corp, however, states that Mr. Lee was terminated due to poor performance and a company-wide restructuring. Mr. Lee presents emails where his manager made comments about "new blood" and "keeping up with younger employees," and evidence that younger, less experienced employees with similar performance reviews were retained. Acme Corp presents Mr. Lee's performance reviews documenting alleged shortcomings and internal memos about the restructuring.

  How it illustrates the term: The true reason for Mr. Lee's termination is a material fact because if the termination was due to age discrimination, it is illegal; if it was due to performance or restructuring, it might be lawful. There is a genuine issue because both sides have presented evidence (manager's comments/retention of younger staff vs. performance reviews/restructuring memos) that plausibly supports their conflicting claims about the employer's motive. This factual dispute about intent needs to be resolved by a jury, making summary judgment inappropriate.