Chessman v. Teets

How courts have described this case

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

• striking portions of a declaration that were “impermissible attempts to place before the Court irrelevant, impugning and/or inflammatory statements”
• denying a motion to strike “because it commits the ... sin of frivolity”
• “Rule 56(e)’s personal knowledge requirement[] renders statements made on information and belief, facts which the affiant believes but does not know are true, insufficient.”
• court struck portions of the agency FOIA Director’s declaration due to a lack of personal knowledge and impermissible hearsay
• court struck portions of the agency FOIA Director’s declaration due to a lack of personal knowledge 8 and impermissible hearsay
• Rule 56(e)’s personal knowledge requirement renders statements made on information and belief, facts which the affiant believes but does not know are true, insufficient

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).