Charles Yeager v. Connie Bowlin

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a statement on a website is not republished unless the statement itself is substantively altered or added to, or the website is directed to a new audience
• noting that a court may “find a declaration to be a sham when it contains facts that the affiant previously testified he could not remember”
• stating that claims under Cal. Civ.Code § 3344 are subject to a two-year statute 9 of limitations
• stating that an inconsistency between a party’s deposition testimony 25 and declaration must be clear and unambiguous to justify striking the 26 declaration
• noting that “sham affidavit” doctrine must be applied cautiously “because it is in tension with the principle that the court is not to make credibility determinations when granting or denying summary judgment”
• holding trial court properly disregarded a declaration containing facts a witness previously testified he could not recall where the newly remembered facts were not accompanied by a reasonable explanation for the witness’s sudden recollection

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).