Brief Fact Summary.
A white teacher sues a restaurant where she was denied service because she was with her Black students on two counts. She loses on one count for failing to prove it and loses the other on summary judgement.
Synopsis of Rule of Law.
In a motion for summary judgement the moving party has the burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue as to any material fact.
Deeply embedded traditional ways of carrying out state policy are often tougher and truer law than the dead words of the written text.View Full Point of Law
Plaintiff Adickes, a white school teacher, was refused service at Defendant Kress in Hattiesburg, Mississippi because she was accompanied by her Black students. After leaving the restaurant Plaintiff Adickes was arrested for vagrancy. Plaintiff Adickes sued Defendant Kress alleging a violation of her equal protection rights (1) when she was refused service because she was in the company of Black people and that there was a custom in the community of segregation in restaurants and (2) that the refusal of service and arrest were the result of a conspiracy between Defendant Kress and the Hattiesburg police. At trial the court found that Plaintiff Adickes did not prove her first point because she did not show that other white people were refused service because they were accompanied by Black people. Her second claim about conspiracy was dismissed on summary judgement before trial. The court of appeals affirmed both counts. Adickes appealed, and the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Does the moving party in a motion for summary judgement have the burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue as to any material fact?
Yes, the moving party in a motion for summary judgement has the burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue as to any material fact. Holding below is reversed and remanded.