Knudsen v. Univ. of Mont.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that under the sham affidavit rule, a trial court may disregard supplemental affidavits which are inconsistent with prior deposition testimony unless the affiant also provides a harmonizing explanation
• admitting plaintiff’s evidence with an affidavit from plaintiff’s president stating he has “reviewed the Site Plan . . . , and declare[s] that it is a true and correct copy of the Site Plan provided to [him]”
• “The [l]ease requires defendant to restore the [pjroperty to its condition at the commencement of the [l]ease, ‘normal wear excepted.’ ”
• “The issues remaining for trial include the condition of the [pjroperty at both the commencement of the [ljease and at the termination of the [ljease, and, if restoration is required, the cost to restore the [pjroperty to its pre-[l]ease condition, ‘normal wear excepted.’ ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).