Perez-De-Munoz v. Volvo Car Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that the court of appeals may affirm a summary judgment on any ground made manifest by the record
• explaining that the affiant’s statements about his employer’s conduct before he joined were not sufficiently based in personal knowledge and were therefore inadmissible
• noting that an objection was preserved where the complaining party pointed “specifically to critical portions of the affidavit on the ground that those excerpts violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(e
• holding that a Rule 56(e) objection to material submitted in support of a summary judgment motion is preserved if the opposing party advises the trial court that she considers the material defective and spells out the nature of the defects clearly and distinctly
• stating, in summary judgment context, that trial court must be conspicuously and timely apprised of objection regarding deficient affidavit and ostensible defects or else the objection is waived
• “Although the statements purport to be based on personal knowledge, they are totally lacking in specificity.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).