In the 1985 case of Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, the United States Supreme Court ruled on an issue related to summary judgment procedures in federal court. The plaintiff, Mrs. Catrett, had filed a lawsuit against Celotex Corporation and other companies claiming that her husband's death was caused by exposure to their asbestos products. However, she failed to produce sufficient evidence showing that any product from Celotex had been used at sites where her husband worked. The Supreme Court held that under Rule 56 of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (which governs summary judgments), the party moving for a summary judgment is not required to provide affirmative evidence disproving the non-moving party’s claim but can simply point out there is an absence of factual support for it or cannot be established with admissible evidence. This ruling clarified what burden a moving party must meet when seeking summary judgment: they need only show that there are no genuine issues as far as material facts are concerned which would necessitate a trial.

The dissenting opinion in the Celotex Corp. v. Catrett case, delivered by Justice Brennan and joined by Justice Marshall, disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure regarding summary judgment. They argued that it was not enough for a moving party to merely assert that there is an absence of evidence supporting the non-moving party’s claim; instead, they should be required to support their motion with credible evidence negating an essential element of the nonmoving party's claim or demonstrating that the nonmoving party cannot produce such evidence at trial. The dissenters believed this approach would better align with traditional burdens of proof and production while also ensuring fairness in litigation proceedings.