Camfield Tires, Inc. v. Michelin Tire Corporation

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that an affidavit filed 3 by the plaintiff in opposition to a motion for summary judgment that directly contradicted his previous deposition testimony was insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact
• noting that the witness “was cross-examined at length on the subject during the earlier deposition”
• addressing district court’s authority to strike affidavit submitted by party in resistance to motion for summary judgment
• explaining evidence of confusion or mistake when being deposed may allow for a later, seemingly contradictory affidavit to create a genuine issue of fact
• indicating district courts should not consider inherently contradictory affidavits submitted by the same party in summary judgment proceedings unless the party explains the inconsistency
• discussing utility of summary judgment as “procedure for screening out sham issues of fact”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).