Granted, IF both sides stipulate as to the facts, then there is no need to present evidence, since the stipulation tells the facts.
However, IF there is not agreement as to the facts, then there IS a material issue of fact, and a trial is the way to resolve that, where evidence must be authenticated in court, under oath.
Why should I believe that your affidavit is valid, unless I can question you about it within the bounds of a court procedure? How do I know you wrote it and not your attorney? How do I know it is your own first-hand knowledge unless I can question you about it?
Even depositions are discovery, not evidence. Of course, if that discovery leads to stipulation as to facts, then it is all moot. The stipulation rules.
I cannot imagine that Trump's lawyers would have stipulated as to the low valuations the AG alleges. That would be an automatic loss, since that is the basis of the claim.
If there is not a stipulation between the parties, then the facts need to be determined at trial, not by having the judge merely pick which set of allegations he likes better.
If you are saying that it is routine for judges to make rulings with no trial where there IS a material issue of fact, and the judge just choses which allegation he likes better, then I have even less respect for your industry than I already do.
Granted, IF both sides stipulate as to the facts, then there is no need to present evidence, since the stipulation tells the facts.
However, IF there is not agreement as to the facts, then there IS a material issue of fact, and a trial is the way to resolve that, where evidence must be authenticated in court, under oath.
Why should I believe that your affidavit is valid, unless I can question you about it within the bounds of a court procedure? How do I know you wrote it and not your attorney? How do I know it is your own first-hand knowledge unless I can question you about it?
Even depositions are discovery, not evidence. Of course, if that discovery leads to stipulation as to facts, then it is all moot. The stipulation rules.
I cannot imagine that Trump's lawyers would have stipulated as to the low valuations the AG alleges. That would be an automatic loss, since that is the basis of the claim.
If there is not a stipulation between the parties, then the facts need to be determined at trial, not by having the judge merely pick which set of allegations he likes better.
If you are saying that it is routine for judges to make rulings with no trial where there IS a material issue of fact, and the judge just choses which allegation he likes better, then I have even less respect for your industry than I already do.
There is no stipulation by the party that opposes an MSJ. They have to submit evidence that refutes the evidence set forth in the msj. Example:
John Doe sued Jane Doe for a slip and fall at Jane Doe's alleged house at 1 Park Ave.
Jane Doe moves for summary judgment with an affidavit that says she has never lived at or owned any property at 1 Park Ave.
John Doe doesn't have any affidavit or attestation or anything to REFUTE what she is saying, but he isn't stipulating either.
Jane Doe is granted summary judgment. The End.