Celotex test in Illinois

2021“A defendant who moves for summary judgment may meet its initial burden of production in at least two ways: (1) by affirmatively disproving the plaintiff's case by introducing evidence that, if uncontroverted, would entitle the movant to judgment as a matter of law (traditional test) (citation), or (2) by establishing that the nonmovant lacks sufficient evidence to prove an essential element of the cause of action (Celotex test). (*** Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 , 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552 , 91 L.Ed.2d 265, 273 (1986) ***).” Williams v. Covenant Medical Center, 316 Ill.

2011"The trial court's summary judgment may be affirmed on any basis appearing in the record whether or not the court relied on that basis or its reasoning was correct." Ray Dancer, Inc. v. DMC Corp., 230 Ill.App.3d 40, 50 , 171 Ill.Dec. 824 , 594 N.E.2d 1344 (1992). ¶ 6 Where, as in this case, the defendant moves for summary judgment, she may prevail "(1) by affirmatively disproving the plaintiff's case by introducing evidence that, if uncontroverted, would entitle the movant to judgment as a matter of law (traditional test) [citation], or (2) by establishing that the nonmovant lacks sufficient e

2025Here, the trial court found plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the quantum meruit counterclaim to be a Celotex motion (Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986)).

2023However, on a Celotex-type motion, the defendant satisfies its initial burden of production when it “ ‘points out’ the absence of evidence supporting the plaintiff’s position.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325 ; see also Selby v. O’Dea, 2020 IL App (1st) 181951, ¶ 218 (“[I]n a Celotex motion, the defendant puts forth no affirmative evidence; it merely argues that plaintiff has no evidence to prove its case.”).

2022“A defendant who moves for summary judgment may meet its initial burden of production in at least two ways: (1) by affirmatively disproving the plaintiff’s case by introducing evidence that, if uncontroverted, would entitle the movant to judgment as a matter of law (traditional test) [citation], or (2) by establishing that the nonmovant lacks sufficient evidence to prove an essential element of the cause of action (Celotex test) (see Rice v. AAA Aerostar, Inc., 294 Ill.

2013App. 3d 682, 688 (2000), explained the two differing types of summary judgment motions: “A defendant who moves for summary judgment may meet its initial burden of production in at least two ways: (1) by affirmatively disproving the plaintiff’s case by introducing evidence that, if uncontroverted, would entitle the movant to judgment as a matter of law (traditional test) (see Purtill v. Hess, 111 Ill. 2d 229 , 240-41 *** (1986)), or (2) by establishing that the nonmovant lacks sufficient evidence to prove an essential element of the cause of action (Celotex test) (see Rice v. AAA Aerostar, Inc.

2026Id. ¶ 27 The distinction between the two is often relevant because, in cases involving a Celotex- type motion, “strict compliance with Rule 191(b)’s affidavit requirement *** is not automatically necessary.” Jiotis, 2014 IL App (2d) 121293, ¶ 26 .

2023See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 326 ; see also Willett v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 366 Ill.

2013App. 3d 682, 688 (2000), explained the two differing types of summary judgment motions: “A defendant who moves for summary judgment may meet its initial burden of production in at least two ways: (1) by affirmatively disproving the plaintiff’s case by introducing evidence that, if uncontroverted, would entitle the movant to judgment as a matter of law (traditional test) (see Purtill v. Hess, 111 Ill. 2d 229 , 240-41 *** (1986)), or (2) by establishing that the nonmovant lacks sufficient evidence to prove an essential element of the cause of action (Celotex test) (see Rice v. AAA Aerostar, Inc.

2000A defendant who moves for summary judgment may meet its initial burden of production in at least two ways: (1) by affirmatively disproving the plaintiff's case by introducing evidence that, if uncontroverted, would entitle the movant to judgment as a matter of law (traditional test) (see Purtill v. Hess , 111 Ill. 2d 229, 240-41 , 489 N.E.2d 867, 871 (1986)), or (2) by establishing that the nonmovant lacks sufficient evidence to prove an essential element of the cause of action ( Celotex test) (see Rice v. AAA Aerostar, Inc. , 294 Ill.

2025See Selby v. O’Dea, 2020 IL App (1st) 181951, ¶ 218 .

2023However, on a Celotex-type motion, the defendant satisfies its initial burden of production when it “ ‘points out’ the absence of evidence supporting the plaintiff’s position.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325 ; see also Selby v. O’Dea, 2020 IL App (1st) 181951, ¶ 218 (“[I]n a Celotex motion, the defendant puts forth no affirmative evidence; it merely argues that plaintiff has no evidence to prove its case.”).

2026If, on the other hand, the motion seeks to establish that the plaintiff cannot prove an essential element of the case due to a lack of evidence, it is a “Celotex motion.” O’Donnell, 2023 IL App (1st) 221736, ¶ 53 . ¶ 25 In a Celotex motion, the movant must show that the evidence available to the plaintiff, even when viewed in its entirety, is insufficient to prove the critical allegations as a matter of law.

2026See id.

2021In re Estate of Rennick, 181 Ill. 2d 395, 401 (1998). ¶ 12 RealWheels characterizes Crossan’s motion as a Celotex motion, challenging RealWheels to produce evidence of damages, but Crossan relies on Polka’s deposition as proof that RealWheels suffered no compensable damages.

2021“Inasmuch as the damages claimed by defendant, as set forth in his examination before trial, are neither actual nor ascertainable and 4 No. 1-18-0812 are speculative in nature, he failed to establish a prima facie case of legal malpractice.” Collard & Roe, P.C. v. Vlacancich, 6 Misc. 3d 17 , 18–19, 789 N.Y.S.2d 599 , 600 (2004); see IGEN, Inc. v. White, 250 A.D.2d 463, 464-65 (1998) (“What plaintiff's argument overlooks is that it has sustained no injury unless there has been an infringement against which its patent would have afforded a right of recovery”).