Talk:genuine issue of material fact

RFV discussion

 * Note: the title of this section was previously Genuine issue of material fact.

Sum of parts? Caps? Nasty format. SemperBlotto 19:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No caps (fixed that). But this is a very common phrase in legal parlance. Any first year law student will be taught to recite it like a mantra in their civil procedure class. In order to get summary judgment (i.e. judgment as a matter of law) the moving party must always prove that there is no "genuine issue of material fact." For example, if we agree that we signed a contract and disagree over whether a term in the contract has a particular meaning, that is an issue of law, not an issue of fact, and a court can decide that without hearing witnesses or taking evidence. If you say I signed the contract and I say I never signed it at all, that is a question of fact, which must be decided by a factfinder after hearing evidence from both sides. I can assure you that this term has clearly widespread use in law.. Cheers! bd2412 T 05:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree (in fact, I know) the phrase is used extensively, but its meaning is clear from its components "genuine", "issue", "of", and "material fact". &mdash;msh210 07:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * On the surface that is correct, but it doesn't tell you that, in strictly legal parlance, this terms refers to the kind of issue that prevents a litigant from prevailing on a motion for summary judgment. This is a legal "term of art", and should remain on that score. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You're saying that the meaning of genuine issue of material fact is "an issue of material fact which is genuine and which (therefore) causes a judge to dismiss a motion for summary judgment"? I differ, if I may. I think it means "an issue of material fact which is genuine" only. The fact that it causes a judge to dismiss a motion for summary judgment is not part of the definition of the word but is, rather, just a legal fact about summary judgment motions. An analogue: Would you say that death means "termination of life, which causes one's possessions to become an estate so someone can inherit"? Or would you say it means "termination of life" only; and the fact that it causes someone to inherit is just a legal fact about estates? &mdash;msh210 14:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The thing that makes it a set phrase is that a lawyer would almost never say "an issue of material fact which is genuine", nor would they say a "real" issue or a "legitimate" issue, or refer to the need for a "pertinent fact" or a "fact on which the case may be decided". The phrase that you will see in the lawyer's brief and in the court's opinion will be "genuine issue of material fact", almost without variation. Other phrases with exactly the same apparent meaning would simply be wrong in the same way that it would be wrong to refer to something as being "under average" instead of "below average". bd2412 T 16:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * So this belongs with the below average discussion then, I suppose. That has stalled, although people seem to agree on not deleting the entry. However, DAVilla's argument there (q.v.) that below average be kept does not apply to genuine issue of material fact. To paraphrase, it was: The meaning of below average is not ascertainable from its parts, as below does not mean "having a score that is below". Here, the meaning is ascertainable from the parts (treating material fact as one part). Nor does Connel MacKenzie's rationale there apply here. (Note, though, that your own argument, BD, to keep below average does apply here, as you're probably well aware.) &mdash;msh210 15:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Has an entry in Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed., p. 708). Thereby meets the lemming test.  So keep, I guess.  I'm not big on the lemming test, but as defined in Black's, the term seems fairly non-compositional.-- Visviva 13:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

RFV passed, despite not having been actually, you know, cited, because it's fairly clearly in widespread legal use. (If there were clear consensus that it was sum-of-parts/non-idiomatic, I might be bold and just delete it, but that's not the case, so I'm hesitant to do that without an RFD.) —Ruakh TALK 04:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. But I'm adding the new template, since this should be cited. —Ruakh TALK 04:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)