Shell Petroleum Corp. v. Shoenfelt

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that Rule 26(g)(3) mandates some type of sanction if Rule 26 is violated
• noting that we have “affirmed decisions refusing sanctions without No. 08-2203 9 elaboration when the reasons for doing so are clear from the record”
• challenging the credibility of the movant’s affiant is not, alone, generally enough to avoid summary judgment
• challenging the credibility of the movant’s affiant is not, alone, generally enough to avoid summary judgment
• noting in a malicious prosecution case that the witness’s credibility issue “was not critical to the determination of probable cause and did not influence the prosecutor’s decision to proceed,” and summary judgment was appropriate where those two essential elements could not be proven
• “[T]he prospect of challenging a witness’ cred- ibility is not alone enough to avoid summary judgment.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).