Chevalier Advertising, Inc. v. Ballista Tactical Systems, Inc.

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Civil Procedure
  • Date Filed: 05-04-2016
  • Case #: A157316
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Shorr, J. for the Court; Armstrong, P.J.; & Egan, J.;
  • Full Text Opinion

Summary judgment is only appropriate where no genuine issues of material fact exists; a material fact is one that might affect the outcome of a case.

Ballista Tactiacal Systems (Ballista), appealed a trial court’s grant of summary judgment for Chevalier Advertising (Chevalier), on Chevalier’s breach of contract claim. On appeal, Ballista assigned error to the trial court’s ruling that several of Ballista’s sworn declarations created issues of material fact that, if true, would preclude a grant of summary judgment in favor of Chevalier. A trial court’s grant of summary judgment is proper only if there are no genuine issues of material fact. A fact is material if it is one that might affect the outcome of a case. In reviewing a motion of summary judgment, a trial court is to view all evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. The Court held that the grant of summary judgment for Chevalier was improper because the trial court drew the incorrect inferences from the evidence, as one of Ballista’s declarations, if true, created an genuine issue of material fact. Reversed and remanded.

Advanced Search