The Union Insurance Society of Canton, Ltd. v. William Gluckin & Co., Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an attorney affirmation not based on personal knowledge is hearsay and is not to be considered on motion for summary judgment
• remanding for trial in order to allow district court to consider extrinsic evidence before applying contra proferentem
• striking affidavit where affiant made “no attempt to specify which assertions [were] based on [personal] knowledge or how he obtained such knowledge.”
• \[S]ound judicial administration strongly suggests that a court should not attempt to reconstruct the intent of the parties in a complicated factual situation before they have had an opportunity to present evidence on that issue before the fact-trier.\
• “The case cannot be taken from the trier of fact simply because ‘The lawyers for the respective parties, by the cross-motions (for summary judgment), superinduced the idea that no factual questions were involved.’”
• “In tort law, the rule is well established that an adverse judgment in an action by a bailor against a third person for conversion or harm to chattels will preclude a subsequent suit by the bailee to the same extent as if the first suit had been by the bailee.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).