Hanson v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ.

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 party may not “create such an issue [of fact] with an affidavit that merely contradicts, without explanation, previously given clear testimony”
• holding that a party may not “create such an issue [of fact] with an affidavit that merely contradicts, without explanation, previously given clear testimony”
• noting that the sham affidavit rule applies “[wjhen a party has given clear answers to unambiguous questions which negate the existence of any genuine issue of material fact”
• affirming summary judgment for’a defendant, despite the plaintiffs submission of an affidavit that purportedly showed a factual dispute, because the plaintiffs deposition testimony contradicted the plaintiffs claim
• “[A] district court may find an affidavit which contradicts testimony on deposition a sham when the party merely contradicts its prior testimony without giving any valid explanation.”
• cited with approval by Traveler’s Insurance Co. v. Demarle Inc., USA, 2005 VT 53, ¶ 9, 178 Vt. 570

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).