Knitter v. Corvias Military Living, LLC

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 witness’s affidavit did not “fit[ ] the sham affidavit paradigm” because it did not “contain any allegations that would directly contradict [the witness’s] earlier deposition testimony”
• holding that a witness’s affidavit did not “fit[ ] the sham affidavit paradigm” because it did not “contain any allegations that would directly contradict [the witness’s] earlier deposition testimony”
• holding that witness’s affidavit did not “fit[] the sham affidavit paradigm” because it did not “contain any allegations that would directly contradict [the witness’s] earlier deposition testimony” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• holding that witness’s affidavit did not “fit[] the sham affidavit paradigm” because it did not “contain any allegations that would directly contradict [the witness’s] earlier deposition testimony” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• holding that witness’s affidavit did not “fit[] the sham affidavit paradigm” because it did not “contain any allegations that would directly contradict [the witness’s] earlier deposition testimony” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• holding that witness’s affidavit did not “fit[] the sham affidavit paradigm” because it did not “contain any allegations that would directly contradict [the witness’s] earlier deposition testimony” (internal quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).