Kennedy v. Allied Mutual Insurance Co.

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 court may discount a “sham” declaration that flatly contradicts earlier deposition testimony
• holding that a court may discount a declaration that “flatly 25 contradicts” earlier deposition testimony
• noting that a contrary rule would “ ‘greatly diminish the utility of summary judgment as a procedure for screening out sham issues of fact’ ”
• holding “general rule in the Ninth Circuit is that a 22 party cannot create an issue of fact by an affidavit contradicting his prior deposition 23 testimony”
• discounting a “sham” affidavit when the district court found that it “flatly contradicts earlier testimony in an attempt to ‘create’ an issue of fact and avoid summary judgment”
• noting “party cannot create . . . issue of fact by . . . affidavit contradicting [her] prior deposition testimony”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).