William L. Clark v. Resistoflex Company, a Division of Unidynamics Corporation and Its Successor Crane Resistoflex Company, a Division of Crane Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• discussing implication of information that supplements, rather than contradicts earlier information, distinguishing Radobenko v. Automated Equip. Corp., 520 F.2d 540, 543-544 (9th Cir.1975) which discussed proper treatment of inconsistencies in sworn evidence
• affidavit must be “so markedly inconsistent with the affiant’s prior deposition as to constitute an obvious sham.”
• plaintiff need only have general knowledge of his ADEA rights \'or the means of obtaining such knowledge'\
• “[T]he filing period is tolled unless or until the employee . . . acquires the “means” of such knowledge by consulting an attorney about the discriminatory act.”
• “Generally, . . . a district court must consider all the evidence before it and cannot disregard a party’s affidavit merely because it conflicts to some degree with an earlier statement.” (quotation marks omitted)
• applying similar provision of federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).