Civ. Pro. Reading

Just finished reading Anverson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. and it's really, really, really repetitive. To me, this is the language most important:

in a ruling on a motion for summary judgment or for a directed verdict necessaarily implicates the substantive evidentiary standard of proof that would apply at the trial on the merits.... judge must ask himself not whether he thinks the evidence unmistakably favors one side or the other but whether a fair-minded jury could return a verdict for the plaintiff on the evidence presented.... The judge's inquiry, therefore, unavoidably asks whether reasonable jurors could find by a preponderance of that evidence that the plaintiff is entitled to a verdict -- "whether there is [evidence] upon which a jury can properly prceed to find a verdict for the party producing it, upon whom the onus of proof is imposed."

That's all one really needs to take from the case.