William Radobenko and Mary G. Radobenko, His Wife, Individually and as Husband and Wife v. Automated Equipment Corporation, a California Corporation

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “the necessity of choosing between the [appellants’] two conflicting versions” of a material fact does not defeat summary judgment
• holding that “contradictory testimony of a plaintiff alone [cannot] be used by him to defeat 6 a defendant’s summary judgment motion where the only issue of fact results from the necessity of 7 choosing between the plaintiff’s two conflicting versions”
• holding 6| that “the necessity of choosing between the [appellants’] two conflicting versions” of a 7 | material fact does not defeat summary judgment
• characterizing 21 an affidavit that contradicted earlier deposition testimony as “sham issues [that] should not subject the defendants to the burden of trial”
• \The very object of summary judgment is to separate real and genuine issues from those that are formal or pretended ....\
• “[T]he very object of summary judgment is to separate real and genuine issues from those that are formal or pretended.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).