Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

500 So. 2d 981

Docket No. 57240.

Ratliff v. Ratliff

Frederick W. RATLIFF, Jr. v. Martha Chadwick RATLIFF.

Mississippi Supreme Court

Decided December 3, 1986.

Rehearing Denied February 4, 1987.

Mississippi Supreme Court · decided 1986-12-03

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“[a]ll motions for summary judgment should be viewed with great skepticism and if the trial court is to err, it is better to err on the side of denying the motion. When doubt exists whether there is a fact issue, the non-moving party gets its benefit. Indeed, the party against whom the summary judgment is sought should be given the benefit of every reasonable doubt.”

quoted by 8 later decisions, including Albert v. Scott's Truck Plaza, Inc., 678 So. 2d 693 - Collier v. TRUSTMARK NAT. BANK

“[w]henever a doubt exists whether there is a fact issue, the non-moving party gets its benefit. Indeed, the party against whom the summary judgment is sought should be given the benefit of every reasonable doubt.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 518 So. 2d 1194 - Magnolia Const. Co. v. MISS. GULF S. ENG.

Relies on 444 So. 2d 358 - Brown v. Credit Center, Inc.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1986-12-03

How this case has been cited

Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably 669 So. 2d 56 - Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co. v. Berry (1996), 629 So. 2d 595 - Daniels v. GNB, Inc. (1993)

50 state decisions

2401986199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1John Robbins, II, Brandon, for appellant.

¶2Lester F. Smith, Robert L. McArty, Perry, Morrison & Smith, Jackson, for appellee.

¶3Before WALKER, C.J., and DAN M. LEE and SULLIVAN, JJ.

¶4SULLIVAN, Justice, for the Court:

¶5Mr. Ratliff sought to modify a prior decree of the Chancery Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County, Mississippi. Mrs. Ratliff filed a motion for summary judgment which she did not support by affidavit or discovery material.

¶6The chancellor improvidently granted the motion for summary judgment. A motion for summary judgment unsupported by affidavit or other sworn statements should not be sustained. Miss.R.Civ.P., 56(e) and Brown v. Credit Center, Inc.,444 So.2d 358 (Miss. 1983).

¶7All motions for summary judgment should be viewed with great skepticism and if the trial court is to err, it is better to err on the side denying the motion. "When doubt exists whether there is a fact issue, the non-moving party gets its benefit. Indeed, the party against whom the summary judgment has been sought should be given the benefit of every reasonable doubt." Brown,444 So.2d at 362. This skepticism on the offer of summary judgment certainly applies in domestic matters, and chancellors should not attempt to use the new practices provided by the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure as a shortcut to the determination in open court of issues that are very frequently factual.

¶8REVERSED AND REMANDED.

¶9WALKER, C.J., ROY NOBLE LEE and HAWKINS, P.JJ., and DAN M. LEE, PRATHER, ROBERTSON, ANDERSON and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.

/500/so2d/981 · .json · Public domain