Antonino v. Barnes, 464 F.2d 584 (4th Cir. 1972). · Go Syfert
Search
Antonino v. Barnes, 464 F.2d 584 (4th Cir. 1972). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
29 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 16 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Clay Printing Co., 955 F.2d 936 (4th Cir. 1992)
Treatment trajectory · 1972 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1972 1999 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 585 Vitiating affidavits lacking personal knowledge of facts14 citing cases“the absence of an affirmative showing of personal knowledge of specific facts vitiates the sufficiency of the affidavits and, accordingly, summary disposition based thereon is improper.”3 citing courts quote it
  • Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Clay Printing Co., 955 F.2d 936 (4th Cir. 1992).published 2 cites
    (absence of affirmative showing of personal knowledge of specific facts vitiates sufficiency)
  • Simon v. New Ctr. Hosp. (In Re New Ctr. Hosp.), 187 B.R. 560 (E.D. Mich. 1995).published
    Antonio v. Barnes, 464 F.2d 584, 585 (4th Cir.1972).
  • Catawba Indian Tribe of South Carolina v. State of S.C., 978 F.2d 1334 (4th Cir. 1992).published
    "The absence of an affirmative showing of personal knowledge of specific facts vitiates the sufficiency of the affidavits and, accordingly, summary disposition based thereon [is] improper." Antonio v. Barnes, 464 F.2d 584, 585 (4th Cir.197…
  • Catawba Indian Tribe of South Carolina v. South Carolina, 978 F.3d 1334 (4th Cir. 1992).published
    “The absence of an affirmative showing of personal knowledge of specific facts vitiates the sufficiency of the affidavits and, accordingly, summary disposition based thereon [is] improper.” Antonio v. Barnes, 464 F.2d 584, 585 (4th Cir.197…
  • Schultz v. Wills (In Re Wills), 126 B.R. 489 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 1991).published
    Because the Debtor’s statement constitutes mere speculation which cannot defeat a summary judgment motion, see Ash v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 800 F.2d 409 , 411-412 (4th Cir.1986) (“[Unsupported] speculation is not sufficient to defeat…
  • Human Resources Inst. of Norfolk, Inc. v. Blue Cross, 484 F. Supp. 520 (E.D. Va. 1980).published
    Antonio v. Barnes, 464 F.2d 584, 585 (4th Cir. 1972).
  • Great Barrington Sav. Bank v. Gens, 397 N.E.2d 1130 (Mass. App. Ct. 1979).published
    Co. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 339 U.S. 827 , 831 (1950); Antonio v. Barnes, 464 F.2d 584, 585 (4th Cir. 1972).
  • Land Title Co. of Alabama v. State ex rel. Porter, 299 So. 2d 289 (Ala. 1974).published 2 cites
    The form of this affidavit closely resembles the following description as found in Antonio v. Barnes, 464 F.2d 584, 585 (4th Cir. 1972): "[T]here is no showing whatever that the statements therein were made on personal knowledge as require…
  • Vega, No. 6:24-cv-00020 (W.D. Va. Nov. 20, 2025).
    See Antonio v. Barnes, 464 F.2d 584, 585 (4th Cir. 1972) (per curiam).
  • Orange v. Fielding, 517 F. Supp. 2d 776 (D.S.C. 2007).published
    See Antonio v. Barnes, 464 F.2d 584, 585 (4th Cir.1972) (reversing district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants when the affidavits stated the affiant was competent to make the affidavit but “there [was] no showing wha…
Show 4 more citing cases
  • Caldwell v. Leavitt, 378 F. Supp. 2d 639 (M.D.N.C. 2005).published
    See Antonio v. Barnes, 464 F.2d 584, 585 (4th Cir.1972).
  • Salami v. North Carolina Agric. & Technical State Univ., 394 F. Supp. 2d 696 (M.D.N.C. 2005).published
    See Antonio v. Barnes, 464 F.2d 584, 585 (4th Cir.1972).
  • In re Caucus Distributors, Inc., 83 B.R. 921 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 1988).published
    (absence of affirmative showing of personal knowledge of specific facts vitiates the sufficiency of an affidavit for the purposes of summary judgment)
  • Evans Prods. Co. v. Clinton Bldg. Supply, Inc., 391 A.2d 157 (Conn. 1978).published
    See, e.g., Antonio v. Barnes, 464 F.2d 584, 585 (4th Cir.) (affidavits of assistant prison superintendents held inadmissible because they did not indicate personal knowledge of prison *516 er’s circumstances); Cole v. Ross Coal Co., 150 P.…
Other citing cases2 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Angelo Costillio Antonio
v.
O. W. Barnes, Assistant Superintendent Northside State Farm, and H. P. Jackson, Assistant Superintendent Southside State Farm
71-1055.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
May 8, 1972.
Published opinion
464 F.2d 584
1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 9691
Published

464 F.2d 584

Angelo Costillio ANTONIO, Appellant,
v.
O. W. BARNES, Assistant Superintendent Northside State Farm,
and H. P. Jackson, Assistant Superintendent
Southside State Farm, Appellees.

No. 71-1055.

United States Court of Appeals,

Fourth Circuit.

Argued March 9, 1972.
Decided May 8, 1972.

Thomas B. Anderson, Jr., Durham, N.C. (Court-appointed) [Loflin, Anderson & Loflin, Durham, N.C., on brief], for appellant.

William P. Robinson, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen. of Va. (Andrew P. Miller, Atty. Gen. of Va., on brief), for appellees.

Before WINTER, BUTZNER and FIELD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

[*~584–585]1

Angelo Costillio Antonio appeals from an order granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The case was initiated by Antonio's pro se pleading entitled "Petition For a Peremptory Writ of Mandamus" which the District Judge elected to treat as a complaint under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. The complaint alleged that the solitary confinement quarters at the Virginia State Farm were unfit for human habitation and that the defendants as assistant superintendents of the Farm failed to furnish the plaintiff and other inmates confined therein articles necessary for their personal sanitation. The defendants' motion for summary judgment under Rule 56, F.R.Civ.P., was supported by their personal affidavits and upon the failure of the plaintiff to file any response, the District Court entered judgment in favor of the defendants.

2

The plaintiff contends that the affidavits filed in support of the summary motion failed to conform to Rule 56(e) which requires that such affidavits "shall be made on personal knowledge, shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated therein." Our examination of the affidavits persuades us that the challenge of their sufficiency is valid. While each affidavit states that the affiant is "competent to make this affidavit," there is no showing whatever that the statements therein were made on personal knowledge as required by the Rule. From the face of the affidavits, they might well be based on mere hearsay or, at best, reflect only a summary of the general routine prescribed for the institution. The absence of an affirmative showing of personal knowledge of specific facts vitiates the sufficiency of the affidavits and, accordingly, summary disposition based thereon was improper. Doza v. American National Insurance Company, 314 F.2d 230 (8 Cir. 1963); 3 Barron & Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure Sec. 1237 (Wright ed. 1958). See also Arguelles v. U. S. Bulk Carriers, Inc., 408 F.2d 1065, 1068 (4 Cir. 1969).

3

We do not suggest that disposition of cases of this nature on summary motion is inappropriate, but the affidavits or other material supporting such a motion must measure up to the requirements of Rule 56.

4

Reversed.