Counter-movant

A 'counter-movant' is a party, individual, or entity that responds to and opposes a motion or application filed by another party in a legal or procedural context. They present arguments, evidence, or objections to challenge the original motion, seeking to prevent its approval or successful implementation. The counter-movant aims to demonstrate why the initial motion is flawed, unjustified, or detrimental to their own interests, or to the broader legal framework. Their actions serve as a check and balance within legal processes.

Counter-movant meaning with examples

• In the intellectual property dispute, the company served as the counter-movant, arguing against the patent infringement motion filed by the competitor. They presented evidence to demonstrate that the product in question did not, in fact, violate any existing patents, and requested the court deny the initial motion. The case hinged on the counter-movant's ability to prove prior art and establish the product's originality.
• The environmental group acted as the counter-movant to the developer’s application for a construction permit. Their opposition cited potential damage to a local wildlife habitat. They provided expert testimony and data, presenting a compelling case to the planning commission, ultimately leading the counter-movant to have the construction motion rejected. This decision protected the local eco-system's integrity.
• During the bankruptcy proceedings, creditors became the counter-movants against the debtor's proposed restructuring plan. They argued the plan unfairly prioritized certain debts and undervalued assets, seeking modifications to protect their own financial claims. The court listened to both sides, making the counter-movant's role in a complex situation to reshape the financial landscape.
• The defense counsel served as the counter-movant in the case of a motion to dismiss due to lack of evidence. They presented supplementary documentation and subpoenaed witnesses to illustrate their belief that the prosecution had sufficient evidence to proceed with the case. This was an attempt for the counter-movant to preserve the option of a trial and demonstrate an undeniable public safety risk.