Summary Decision in administrative proceedings is the functional equivalent of summary judgment in civil proceedings. See Jack King and National Refrigeration, Inc. LB-12-367 and LB-12-407 v. Office of the Attorney General, Fair Labor Division, (Division of Administrative Law Appeals January 29, 2014) citing Caitlin v. Board of 414 Mass. 1, 7 (1992) (citing Mass. R. Civ. P. 56 for summary Registration of Architects, decision in administrative cases), CR-08-589 Calnan v. Cambridge Retirement Board, (Division of Administrative Law Appeals February 17, 2012) and Steriti v. Revere CR-07-683 (Division of Administrative Law Appeals December 10, Retirement Board, 2009). Summary decision is appropriate when there are no genuine issues of material fact and the case may be decided as a matter of law. citing at King, supra, Caitlin, supra p. 7, 801 CMR 1.01(7)(h) and Mass. R. Civ. P. 56. A fact is only if it might “material” affect the outcome of the case. citing King, supra, Lockridge v. The Univ. of Maine 597 F 3d 464, 469 n. 3 (1st Cir. 2010) citing 477 System, Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. U.S. 242, 248 (1986). An issue of material fact is only if a fact-finder could “genuine” reasonably resolve the dispute in favor of either party. (citing 369 Id. Santoni v. Potter, F.3d 594, 598 (1st Cir. 2004). The moving party must demonstrate the absence of any genuine issues of material fact. 801 CMR 1.01(7)(h), Mass. R. Civ. P. 56, see also Flesner v. Technical 410 Mass. 805, 808 (1991) (Evidence be in the form of Communications Corp., “may affidavits, depositions, interrogatories, admission and sworn pleadings”). King, supra, citing 31 Mass. App. Ct. 606, 607 (1991). Inferences from these Beatty v. NP Corp, materials must be drawn in the light most favorable to the opposing party. Beatty, supra
Summary Decision in administrative proceedings is the functional equivalent of summary judgment in civil proceedings. See Jack King and National Refrigeration, Inc. v. Office of the Attorney General, Fair Labor Division, LB-12-367 and LB-12-407 (Division of Administrative Law Appeals January 29, 2014) citing Caitlin v. Board of Registration of Architects, 414 Mass. 1, 7 (1992) (citing Mass. R. Civ. P. 56 for summary decision in administrative cases), Calnan v. Cambridge Retirement Board, CR-08-589 (Division of Administrative Law Appeals February 17, 2012) and Steriti v. Revere Retirement Board, CR-07-683 (Division of Administrative Law Appeals December 10, 2009). Summary decision is appropriate when there are no genuine issues of material fact and the case may be decided as a matter of law. King, supra, citing Caitlin, supra at p. 7, 801 CMR 1.01(7)(h) and Mass. R. Civ. P. 56. A fact is “material” only if it might affect the outcome of the case. King, supra, citing Lockridge v. The Univ. of Maine System, 597 F 3d 464, 469 n. 3 (1st Cir. 2010) citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). An issue of material fact is “genuine” only if a fact-finder could reasonably resolve the dispute in favor of either party. Id. (citing Santoni v. Potter, 369 F.3d 594, 598 (1st Cir. 2004). The moving party must demonstrate the absence of any genuine issues of material fact. 801 CMR 1.01(7)(h), see also Mass. R. Civ. P. 56, Flesner v. Technical Communications Corp., 410 Mass. 805, 808 (1991) (Evidence “may be in the form of affidavits, depositions, interrogatories, admission and sworn pleadings”). King, supra, citing Beatty v. NP Corp, 31 Mass. App. Ct. 606, 607 (1991). Inferences from these materials must be drawn in the light most favorable to the opposing party. Beatty, supra
dept-of-early-education-and-care-v-reyes-bellamira-recommended-decision-08-01-2017.docx