Jeffreys v. City of New York

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that, when deciding a motion for summary judgment, a district court must render a credibility determination when facing a plaintiff’s internally contradictory testimony that is wholly unsupported by corroborating record evidence
• noting that “[a]ssessments of credibility and choices between conflicting versions of the events are matters for the jury, not for the court on summary judgment”
• noting that “[a]ssessments of credibility and choices between conflicting versions of the events are matters for the jury, not for the court on summary judgment”
• holding summary judgment was proper where there was “nothing in the record to support plaintiff’s allegations other than plaintiff’s own contradictory and incomplete testimony”
• noting that “[a]ssessments of credibility and choices between conflicting versions of the events are matters for the jury, not for the court on summary judgment”
• noting that, to defeat summary judgment, “a nonmoving party must offer some hard evidence showing that its version of the events is not wholly fanciful” (internal quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).