persuasion, the party seeking summary judgment bears an initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Once the moving party has met that burden, the non-moving party must come forward and demonstrate that such an issue does, in fact, exist. See Matsushita Elec. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 415 U.S. 574, 586-87, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). A party opposing a properly supported motion for summary judgment “may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of [his] pleadings,” but rather must “set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e); see Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., 475 U.S. at 586-87, 106 S.Ct. 1348 (<HOLDING>); Cray Communications, Inc. v. Novatel Computer
holding that the mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact holding that once motion for summary judgment is properly made and supported opposing party bears burden of showing by means of affidavits or other verified evidence that genuine dispute of material fact exists holding that the moving party has tjhe burden of showing no genuine issue of material fact exists holding that the moving party for summary judgment bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact for trial holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if there is a genuine dispute about a material fact