United States v. Diebold, Inc.

holding that, on summary judgment, inferences drawn from the underlying facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party | holding that a court must construe all inferences and ambiguities against the movant and in favor of the non-moving party in determining whether a genuine issue of material act has been raised | stating that if “contrary inferences” from the evidence might be permissible, summary judgment is inappropriate | noting that material in the record must be examined in “the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion” | recognizing on summary judgment, a court must view the facts 26 and draw reasonable inferences “in the light most favorable to the party opposing the 27 motion” | construing Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 56 , upon which Rule 121 is based | reversing summary judgment where material questions of fact existed as to whether defendant “was the only bona fide prospective purchaser for [the acquired firm’s] business” | reversing summary judgment where material questions of fact existed as to whether defendant “was the only bona fide prospective purchaser for [the acquired firm’s] business” | adopting this two-step procedure of reformation under § 1132(a)(3) and an award of benefits under § 1132(a)(1)(B) | construing Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 56, upon which Rule 121 is based | construing Fed. R. Crim. P. 56 , upon which Rule 121 is based | the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion under consideration | courts cannot choose from among rational inferences that could be drawn from underlying facts where trial would be to a jury | both observing that evidentiary submissions by movant for summary judgment “must be viewed in the light most favorable to the opposing party” | "On summary judgment the inferences to be drawn from the underlying facts ... must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion." | Where different ultimate inferences can be drawn, the case is not a proper one for summary judgment | inferences to be drawn from underlying facts contained in materials presented must be viewed in light of most favorable to party opposing motion | “on summary judgment the inferences to be drawn from the underlying facts ... must be viewed in the light most favorable to ... the party opposing the motion” | "[o]n summary judgment the inferences to be drawn from the underlying facts ... must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion." | "[o]n summary judgment the inferences to be drawn from the underlying facts ... must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion." | “On summary judgment the inferences to be drawn from the underlying facts ... must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.” | “On summary judgment the inferences to be drawn from the underlying facts contained in [affidavits, exhibits, and depositions] must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion” | “[D]efendants fail[ed] to submit an answer or other responsive pleading denying the factual allegations of plaintiff's “actual” claim #2.” | “In deciding cross motions for summary judgment, the Court views the facts in the light most favorable to the respective non-moving party” | “Conclusory or speculative allegations do not suffice, nor does a mere scintilla of evidence in support of [the non-moving party’s] case.” | “[T]he district court must construe the evidence and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.” | “[T]he district court must construe the evidence and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.” | “no oral statements or representations or prior written matter not contained in this instrument shall have any force or effect” | favorable inferences are drawn "from the underlying facts contained in . . . materials [submitted below]" | "On summary judgment the infe