Robert J. Rule v. Brine, Inc., Also Known as W.H. Brine Company, and William H. Brine, Jr.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that when subsequent sworn testimony “amplifies or explains, but does not merely contradict” prior testimony, a party may show that a triable issue of fact exists
• “[P]laintiff need not make a pretrial election between these theories; he is entitled to have the case submitted to the jury on both theories.”
• “Assessments of credibility . . . are matters for the jury, not for the court on summary judgment.” (citations omitted)
• “Assessments of credibility and choices between conflicting versions of the events are matters for the jury, not for the court on summary judgment.”
• “Assessments of credibility and choices between conflicting versions of the events are matters for the jury, not for the court on summary judgment.”
• “Assessments of credibility and choices between conflicting versions of the events are matters for the jury, not for the court on summary judgment.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).