FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c); see Ruiz-Rivera v. Moyer, 70 F.3d 498, 500-01 (7th Cir.1995). The moving party has the burden of providing proper documentary evidence to show the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). A genuine issue of material fact exists when “there is sufficient evidence favoring the non-moving party for a jury to return a verdict for that party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). Interpreting the terms of a contract is generally a question of law for the court. See Quake Constr. v. American Airlines, 141 Ill.2d 281, 152 Ill.Dec. 308, 565 N.E.2d 990, 994 (Ill.1990); Murphy v. Keystone Steel & Wire Co., 61 F.3d 560 (7th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). In determining the meaning of words in a
holding that under illinois law interpreting the meaning of a contract is a question of law determined by the court holding that the validity of a contract for a commission for the sale of real estate is determined by the law of the state where the contract is made holding that the viability of the derivative action is determined by law of illinois the state of incorporation holding that whether a previous conviction is a crime of violence is a question of law not of fact as it must be determined by interpreting  4b12 holding as a general rule of contract law if no other meaning is reasonable the court shall rule as a matter of law that the meaning is established