summary judgment

简明释义

即决审判;即决判决

英英释义

例句

1.The court granted a summary judgment 简易判决 in favor of the defendant, stating there was insufficient evidence to support the plaintiff's claims.

法院对被告做出了summary judgment 简易判决，认为原告的证据不足以支持其主张。

2.After reviewing the evidence, the judge decided to issue a summary judgment 简易判决 to expedite the case.

在审查了证据后，法官决定发布summary judgment 简易判决以加快案件进程。

3.The plaintiff's attorney filed a motion for summary judgment 简易判决, arguing that there were no material facts in dispute.

原告的律师提交了一个summary judgment 简易判决的动议，辩称不存在有争议的实质性事实。

4.The defendant successfully obtained a summary judgment 简易判决 based on lack of evidence from the prosecution.

被告成功获得了基于检方缺乏证据的summary judgment 简易判决。

5.In civil litigation, a summary judgment 简易判决 can save time and resources by resolving cases without a full trial.

在民事诉讼中，summary judgment 简易判决可以通过不进行全面审判来节省时间和资源。

作文

In the legal field, the term summary judgment refers to a court's decision made without a full trial. This legal mechanism allows a judge to rule on the merits of a case based on the evidence presented in written form, rather than requiring the parties to go through the lengthy and often costly process of a trial. The purpose of summary judgment is to expedite the resolution of cases that do not require a jury's deliberation or where there are no genuine disputes of material fact. In essence, it serves to streamline the judicial process, allowing courts to focus their resources on more complex cases that necessitate a full examination of the facts and evidence.The process of obtaining a summary judgment begins when one party, usually the defendant, files a motion with the court after the discovery phase of a case has been completed. This motion argues that there are no significant factual disputes that would warrant a trial and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The opposing party then has an opportunity to respond, presenting any evidence that may suggest that there are indeed factual disputes that need to be resolved in a trial setting.If the judge finds that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the law favors the moving party, they will grant the summary judgment. This results in a final ruling on the case or specific issues within the case, effectively ending the litigation for those matters. However, if the judge determines that factual disputes exist, the case will proceed to trial, where a jury or judge will hear the evidence and make a determination based on the full presentation of facts.One key aspect of summary judgment is its role in promoting judicial efficiency. Courts are often burdened with a high volume of cases, and the ability to resolve straightforward matters through summary judgment helps to alleviate some of this pressure. It also benefits litigants by reducing the time and expenses associated with prolonged litigation. For instance, businesses involved in commercial disputes can save significant resources by resolving clear-cut issues through summary judgment, rather than engaging in a lengthy trial process.However, the use of summary judgment is not without controversy. Critics argue that it can lead to unjust outcomes, particularly when a judge makes determinations about the credibility of evidence without hearing it in a trial setting. There is a concern that important facts may be overlooked or misinterpreted, leading to premature conclusions about a case. Therefore, courts must exercise caution and ensure that summary judgment is only granted when it is truly appropriate and warranted by the circumstances.In conclusion, summary judgment is a valuable tool in the legal system that promotes efficiency and expedites the resolution of cases that do not require a full trial. While it serves important purposes, it is essential for judges to carefully assess the evidence and ensure that justice is served by granting summary judgment only in appropriate situations. As the legal landscape continues to evolve, understanding the implications and applications of summary judgment remains crucial for legal practitioners and individuals involved in litigation.

在法律领域，短语summary judgment指的是法院在没有进行完整审判的情况下作出的决定。这种法律机制允许法官根据书面证据对案件的实质进行裁决，而不要求当事人经历漫长且通常代价高昂的审判过程。summary judgment的目的是加快解决不需要陪审团审议或没有实质性事实争议的案件的速度。实质上，它旨在简化司法程序，使法院能够将资源集中于更复杂的案件，这些案件需要对事实和证据进行全面审查。获得summary judgment的过程始于一方，通常是被告，在案件发现阶段完成后向法院提交动议。该动议主张不存在重大事实争议，且动议方依法有权获得判决。对方则有机会回应，提出任何可能表明确实存在应在审判中解决的事实争议的证据。如果法官发现不存在真正的实质性事实争议，且法律支持动议方，他们将授予summary judgment。这会导致对案件或案件内特定问题的最终裁决，有效地结束这些事项的诉讼。然而，如果法官认定存在事实争议，案件将进入审判阶段，由陪审团或法官听取证据并根据事实的全面呈现做出判断。summary judgment的一个关键方面是其在促进司法效率中的作用。法院通常面临大量案件的压力，通过summary judgment解决简单事务的能力有助于减轻这种压力。它还通过减少与漫长诉讼相关的时间和费用来使诉讼人受益。例如，涉及商业争端的企业可以通过summary judgment解决明确的问题，从而节省大量资源，而不是参与漫长的审判过程。然而，使用summary judgment并非没有争议。批评者认为，这可能导致不公正的结果，特别是在法官在没有在审判环境中听取证据的情况下对证据的可信度做出判断时。人们担心重要事实可能被忽视或误解，从而导致对案件的过早结论。因此，法院必须谨慎行事，确保只有在真正适当的情况下才授予summary judgment。总之，summary judgment是法律系统中一种有价值的工具，促进了效率并加快了解决不需要完整审判的案件的进程。尽管它服务于重要目的，但法官必须仔细评估证据，确保通过仅在适当情况下授予summary judgment来实现公正。随着法律环境的不断演变，理解summary judgment的含义和应用对法律从业者以及参与诉讼的个人仍然至关重要。