Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
11 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 2002–2024 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New Jersey courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Shelcusky v. Garjuliogreen2 sentences2021Relying on the sham affidavit doctrine in Shelcusky v. Garjulio, 172 N.J. 185 (2002), the judge concluded plaintiff's recitation of his mistreatment [was] wide ranging but [did] not contain any independent factual support and [was] full of generalities, contradictions and inaccuracies. 2019As to plaintiff's certification, the judge stated that it "would have to be considered nothing more than a sham affidavit." He stated that "[w]hile [p]laintiff argues in this sham affidavit that he was 'imprisoned and helpless[,]' that situation did not arise from the use of a motor vehicle but rather from the use or threatened use of a gun." The sham affidavit doctrine "refers to the trial court practice of disregarding an offsetting affidavit that is submitted in opposition to a motion for summary judgment when the affidavit contradicts the affiant's prior deposition testimony." Shelcusky v. | 7 | 10 |
Hinton v. Meyersgreen1 sentence2017Under "the sham affidavit doctrine," trial courts may "disregard[] an offsetting affidavit that is submitted in opposition to a motion for summary judgment when the affidavit contradicts the affiant's prior deposition testimony." Shelcusky v. Garjulio, 172 N.J. 185, 193-94 (2002). "[A] trial court may reject an affidavit as a sham when it 'contradict[s] patently and sharply' earlier deposition testimony, there is no reasonable explanation offered for the contradiction, and at the time the deposition testimony was elicited, there was no confusion or lack of clarity evident from the record." Hin | 1 | 1 |
Inman v. Club on Sailboat Key, Inc.green2 sentences2002See, e.g., Robinson v. Hank Roberts, Inc., 514 So. 2d 958, 961 (Ala.1987); Wright v. Hills, 161 Ariz. 583 , 780 P. 2d 416, 420-21 (Ariz. Ct.App.1989), abrogated on other grounds, James, Cooke & Hobson, Inc. v. Lake Havasu Plumbing and Fire Prot., 177 Ariz. 316 , 868 P. 2d 329 (Ariz.Ct.App.1994); Caplener v. Bluebonnet Milling Co., 322 Ark. 751 , 911 S.W. 2d 586, 589-90 (1995); Nutt v. A.C. & S. Co., 517 A. 2d 690, 693 (Del.Super.Ct.1986); Hancock v. Bureau of Nat'l Affairs, Inc., 645 A. 2d 588, 590-91 (D.C.App.1994); Inman v. Club on Sailboat Key, Inc., 342 So. 2d 1069, 1070 (Fla. Dist.Ct.App. 2002See, e.g., Robinson v. Hank Roberts, Inc., 514 So.2d 958, 961 (Ala.1987); Wright v. Hills, 161 Ariz. 583 , 780 P.2d 416, 420-21 (Ariz.Ct.App.1989), abrogated on other grounds, James, Cooke & Hobson, Inc. v. Lake Havasu Plumbing and Fire Prot., 177 Ariz. 316 , 868 P.2d 329 (Ariz.Ct.App.1994); Caplener v. Bluebonnet Milling Co., 322 Ark. 751 , 911 S.W.2d 586, 589-90 (1995); Nutt v. A.C. & S. Co., 517 A.2d 690, 693 (Del.Su per.Ct.1986); Hancock v. Bureau of Nat’l Affairs, Inc., 645 A.2d 588, 590-91 (D.C.App.1994); Inman v. Club on Sailboat Key, Inc., 342 So.2d 1069, 1070 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1977); T | 1 | 1 |
Martin v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.green2 sentences2002See also Franks, supra, 796 F.2d at 1237 (describing factors relevant to determination of “sham fact issue” as whether affiant was cross-examined during deposition, whether affidavit was based on newly discovered information, or whether earlier testimony reflected confusion that later affidavit attempted to explain); Martin, supra, 851 F.2d at 705 (recognizing that “[wjhere the witness was confused at the earlier deposition or for some other reason misspoke, the subsequent correcting or clarifying affidavit may be sufficient to create a material dispute of fact[,]” but nonetheless affirming su 2002See also Franks, supra, 796 F.2d at 1237 (describing factors relevant to determination of “sham fact issue” as whether affiant was cross-examined during deposition, whether affidavit was based on newly discovered information, or whether earlier testimony reflected confusion that later affidavit attempted to explain); Martin, supra, 851 F.2d at 705 (recognizing that “[wjhere the witness was confused at the earlier deposition or for some other reason misspoke, the subsequent correcting or clarifying affidavit may be sufficient to create a material dispute of fact[,]” but nonetheless affirming su | 1 | 1 |
Franks v. Nimmogreen2 sentences2002See also Franks, supra, 796 F.2d at 1237 (describing factors relevant to determination of “sham fact issue” as whether affiant was cross-examined during deposition, whether affidavit was based on newly discovered information, or whether earlier testimony reflected confusion that later affidavit attempted to explain); Martin, supra, 851 F.2d at 705 (recognizing that “[wjhere the witness was confused at the earlier deposition or for some other reason misspoke, the subsequent correcting or clarifying affidavit may be sufficient to create a material dispute of fact[,]” but nonetheless affirming su 2002See also Franks, supra, 796 F.2d at 1237 (describing factors relevant to determination of “sham fact issue” as whether affiant was cross-examined during deposition, whether affidavit was based on newly discovered information, or whether earlier testimony reflected confusion that later affidavit attempted to explain); Martin, supra, 851 F.2d at 705 (recognizing that “[wjhere the witness was confused at the earlier deposition or for some other reason misspoke, the subsequent correcting or clarifying affidavit may be sufficient to create a material dispute of fact[,]” but nonetheless affirming su | 1 | 1 |
William L. Tippens, Deceased, Nell P. Tippens, Individually and as Widow of William L. Tippens v. The Celotex Corporationgreen2 sentences2002See Tippens v. Celotex Corp., 805 F. 2d 949, 954 (11th Cir. 1986) (finding that affidavit stating that affiant could generally remember occurrence of certain events did not contradict prior deposition testimony where affiant was unable to recall specific occurrences of same events). 2002See Tippens v. Celotex Corp., 805 F. 2d 949, 954 (11th Cir.1986) (finding that affidavit stating that affiant could generally remember occurrence of certain events did not contradict prior deposition testimony where affiant was unable to recall specific occurrences of same events). | 1 | 1 |
Nutt v. AC & S. CO., INC.green2 sentences2002See, e.g., Robinson v. Hank Roberts, Inc., 514 So. 2d 958, 961 (Ala.1987); Wright v. Hills, 161 Ariz. 583 , 780 P. 2d 416, 420-21 (Ariz. Ct.App.1989), abrogated on other grounds, James, Cooke & Hobson, Inc. v. Lake Havasu Plumbing and Fire Prot., 177 Ariz. 316 , 868 P. 2d 329 (Ariz.Ct.App.1994); Caplener v. Bluebonnet Milling Co., 322 Ark. 751 , 911 S.W. 2d 586, 589-90 (1995); Nutt v. A.C. & S. Co., 517 A. 2d 690, 693 (Del.Super.Ct.1986); Hancock v. Bureau of Nat'l Affairs, Inc., 645 A. 2d 588, 590-91 (D.C.App.1994); Inman v. Club on Sailboat Key, Inc., 342 So. 2d 1069, 1070 (Fla. Dist.Ct.App. 2002See, e.g., Robinson v. Hank Roberts, Inc., 514 So.2d 958, 961 (Ala.1987); Wright v. Hills, 161 Ariz. 583 , 780 P.2d 416, 420-21 (Ariz.Ct.App.1989), abrogated on other grounds, James, Cooke & Hobson, Inc. v. Lake Havasu Plumbing and Fire Prot., 177 Ariz. 316 , 868 P.2d 329 (Ariz.Ct.App.1994); Caplener v. Bluebonnet Milling Co., 322 Ark. 751 , 911 S.W.2d 586, 589-90 (1995); Nutt v. A.C. & S. Co., 517 A.2d 690, 693 (Del.Su per.Ct.1986); Hancock v. Bureau of Nat’l Affairs, Inc., 645 A.2d 588, 590-91 (D.C.App.1994); Inman v. Club on Sailboat Key, Inc., 342 So.2d 1069, 1070 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1977); T | 1 | 1 |
Robinson v. Hank Roberts, Inc.green2 sentences2002See, e.g., Robinson v. Hank Roberts, Inc., 514 So. 2d 958, 961 (Ala.1987); Wright v. Hills, 161 Ariz. 583 , 780 P. 2d 416, 420-21 (Ariz. Ct.App.1989), abrogated on other grounds, James, Cooke & Hobson, Inc. v. Lake Havasu Plumbing and Fire Prot., 177 Ariz. 316 , 868 P. 2d 329 (Ariz.Ct.App.1994); Caplener v. Bluebonnet Milling Co., 322 Ark. 751 , 911 S.W. 2d 586, 589-90 (1995); Nutt v. A.C. & S. Co., 517 A. 2d 690, 693 (Del.Super.Ct.1986); Hancock v. Bureau of Nat'l Affairs, Inc., 645 A. 2d 588, 590-91 (D.C.App.1994); Inman v. Club on Sailboat Key, Inc., 342 So. 2d 1069, 1070 (Fla. Dist.Ct.App. 2002See, e.g., Robinson v. Hank Roberts, Inc., 514 So.2d 958, 961 (Ala.1987); Wright v. Hills, 161 Ariz. 583 , 780 P.2d 416, 420-21 (Ariz.Ct.App.1989), abrogated on other grounds, James, Cooke & Hobson, Inc. v. Lake Havasu Plumbing and Fire Prot., 177 Ariz. 316 , 868 P.2d 329 (Ariz.Ct.App.1994); Caplener v. Bluebonnet Milling Co., 322 Ark. 751 , 911 S.W.2d 586, 589-90 (1995); Nutt v. A.C. & S. Co., 517 A.2d 690, 693 (Del.Su per.Ct.1986); Hancock v. Bureau of Nat’l Affairs, Inc., 645 A.2d 588, 590-91 (D.C.App.1994); Inman v. Club on Sailboat Key, Inc., 342 So.2d 1069, 1070 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1977); T | 1 | 1 |
Wright v. Hillsgreen2 sentences2002See, e.g., Robinson v. Hank Roberts, Inc., 514 So.2d 958, 961 (Ala.1987); Wright v. Hills, 161 Ariz. 583 , 780 P.2d 416, 420-21 (Ariz.Ct.App.1989), abrogated on other grounds, James, Cooke & Hobson, Inc. v. Lake Havasu Plumbing and Fire Prot., 177 Ariz. 316 , 868 P.2d 329 (Ariz.Ct.App.1994); Caplener v. Bluebonnet Milling Co., 322 Ark. 751 , 911 S.W.2d 586, 589-90 (1995); Nutt v. A.C. & S. Co., 517 A.2d 690, 693 (Del.Su per.Ct.1986); Hancock v. Bureau of Nat’l Affairs, Inc., 645 A.2d 588, 590-91 (D.C.App.1994); Inman v. Club on Sailboat Key, Inc., 342 So.2d 1069, 1070 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1977); T 2002See, e.g., Robinson v. Hank Roberts, Inc., 514 So.2d 958, 961 (Ala.1987); Wright v. Hills, 161 Ariz. 583 , 780 P.2d 416, 420-21 (Ariz.Ct.App.1989), abrogated on other grounds, James, Cooke & Hobson, Inc. v. Lake Havasu Plumbing and Fire Prot., 177 Ariz. 316 , 868 P.2d 329 (Ariz.Ct.App.1994); Caplener v. Bluebonnet Milling Co., 322 Ark. 751 , 911 S.W.2d 586, 589-90 (1995); Nutt v. A.C. & S. Co., 517 A.2d 690, 693 (Del.Su per.Ct.1986); Hancock v. Bureau of Nat’l Affairs, Inc., 645 A.2d 588, 590-91 (D.C.App.1994); Inman v. Club on Sailboat Key, Inc., 342 So.2d 1069, 1070 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1977); T | 1 | 1 |
Caplener v. Bluebonnet Milling Co.green2 sentences2002See, e.g., Robinson v. Hank Roberts, Inc., 514 So.2d 958, 961 (Ala.1987); Wright v. Hills, 161 Ariz. 583 , 780 P.2d 416, 420-21 (Ariz.Ct.App.1989), abrogated on other grounds, James, Cooke & Hobson, Inc. v. Lake Havasu Plumbing and Fire Prot., 177 Ariz. 316 , 868 P.2d 329 (Ariz.Ct.App.1994); Caplener v. Bluebonnet Milling Co., 322 Ark. 751 , 911 S.W.2d 586, 589-90 (1995); Nutt v. A.C. & S. Co., 517 A.2d 690, 693 (Del.Su per.Ct.1986); Hancock v. Bureau of Nat’l Affairs, Inc., 645 A.2d 588, 590-91 (D.C.App.1994); Inman v. Club on Sailboat Key, Inc., 342 So.2d 1069, 1070 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1977); T 2002See, e.g., Robinson v. Hank Roberts, Inc., 514 So.2d 958, 961 (Ala.1987); Wright v. Hills, 161 Ariz. 583 , 780 P.2d 416, 420-21 (Ariz.Ct.App.1989), abrogated on other grounds, James, Cooke & Hobson, Inc. v. Lake Havasu Plumbing and Fire Prot., 177 Ariz. 316 , 868 P.2d 329 (Ariz.Ct.App.1994); Caplener v. Bluebonnet Milling Co., 322 Ark. 751 , 911 S.W.2d 586, 589-90 (1995); Nutt v. A.C. & S. Co., 517 A.2d 690, 693 (Del.Su per.Ct.1986); Hancock v. Bureau of Nat’l Affairs, Inc., 645 A.2d 588, 590-91 (D.C.App.1994); Inman v. Club on Sailboat Key, Inc., 342 So.2d 1069, 1070 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1977); T | 1 | 1 |
Hancock v. Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.green2 sentences2002See, e.g., Robinson v. Hank Roberts, Inc., 514 So. 2d 958, 961 (Ala.1987); Wright v. Hills, 161 Ariz. 583 , 780 P. 2d 416, 420-21 (Ariz. Ct.App.1989), abrogated on other grounds, James, Cooke & Hobson, Inc. v. Lake Havasu Plumbing and Fire Prot., 177 Ariz. 316 , 868 P. 2d 329 (Ariz.Ct.App.1994); Caplener v. Bluebonnet Milling Co., 322 Ark. 751 , 911 S.W. 2d 586, 589-90 (1995); Nutt v. A.C. & S. Co., 517 A. 2d 690, 693 (Del.Super.Ct.1986); Hancock v. Bureau of Nat'l Affairs, Inc., 645 A. 2d 588, 590-91 (D.C.App.1994); Inman v. Club on Sailboat Key, Inc., 342 So. 2d 1069, 1070 (Fla. Dist.Ct.App. 2002See, e.g., Robinson v. Hank Roberts, Inc., 514 So.2d 958, 961 (Ala.1987); Wright v. Hills, 161 Ariz. 583 , 780 P.2d 416, 420-21 (Ariz.Ct.App.1989), abrogated on other grounds, James, Cooke & Hobson, Inc. v. Lake Havasu Plumbing and Fire Prot., 177 Ariz. 316 , 868 P.2d 329 (Ariz.Ct.App.1994); Caplener v. Bluebonnet Milling Co., 322 Ark. 751 , 911 S.W.2d 586, 589-90 (1995); Nutt v. A.C. & S. Co., 517 A.2d 690, 693 (Del.Su per.Ct.1986); Hancock v. Bureau of Nat’l Affairs, Inc., 645 A.2d 588, 590-91 (D.C.App.1994); Inman v. Club on Sailboat Key, Inc., 342 So.2d 1069, 1070 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1977); T | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Jersey. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Brill v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America
green
2 sentences2005Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520 , 666 A.2d 146 (1995). 2005Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520 , 666 A.2d 146 (1995). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Yahnke v. Carson
green
2 sentences2002Yahnke, supra, 613 N.W. 2d at 104 . 2002Yahnke, supra, 613 N.W.2d at 104 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
James, Cooke & Hobson, Inc. v. Lake Havasu Plumbing & Fire Protection
green
2 sentences2002See, e.g., Robinson v. Hank Roberts, Inc., 514 So.2d 958, 961 (Ala.1987); Wright v. Hills, 161 Ariz. 583 , 780 P.2d 416, 420-21 (Ariz.Ct.App.1989), abrogated on other grounds, James, Cooke & Hobson, Inc. v. Lake Havasu Plumbing and Fire Prot., 177 Ariz. 316 , 868 P.2d 329 (Ariz.Ct.App.1994); Caplener v. Bluebonnet Milling Co., 322 Ark. 751 , 911 S.W.2d 586, 589-90 (1995); Nutt v. A.C. & S. Co., 517 A.2d 690, 693 (Del.Su per.Ct.1986); Hancock v. Bureau of Nat’l Affairs, Inc., 645 A.2d 588, 590-91 (D.C.App.1994); Inman v. Club on Sailboat Key, Inc., 342 So.2d 1069, 1070 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1977); T 2002See, e.g., Robinson v. Hank Roberts, Inc., 514 So.2d 958, 961 (Ala.1987); Wright v. Hills, 161 Ariz. 583 , 780 P.2d 416, 420-21 (Ariz.Ct.App.1989), abrogated on other grounds, James, Cooke & Hobson, Inc. v. Lake Havasu Plumbing and Fire Prot., 177 Ariz. 316 , 868 P.2d 329 (Ariz.Ct.App.1994); Caplener v. Bluebonnet Milling Co., 322 Ark. 751 , 911 S.W.2d 586, 589-90 (1995); Nutt v. A.C. & S. Co., 517 A.2d 690, 693 (Del.Su per.Ct.1986); Hancock v. Bureau of Nat’l Affairs, Inc., 645 A.2d 588, 590-91 (D.C.App.1994); Inman v. Club on Sailboat Key, Inc., 342 So.2d 1069, 1070 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1977); T | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Kennett-Murray Corporation v. John E. Bone
green
2 sentences2002Furthermore, the statement in the affidavit is not at odds with [defendant's] general theory of defense presented in the deposition. [ Id. at 894-95 .] Thus, the Fifth Circuit's decision in Kennett-Murray qualified application of the sham affidavit doctrine by not allowing rejection of an allegedly contradictory affidavit that explained aspects of the affiant's deposition testimony on an unclear point. 2002Id. at 894-95 .] Thus, the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Kennetb-Murray qualified application of the sham affidavit doctrine by not allowing rejection of an allegedly contradictory affidavit that explained aspects of the affiant’s deposition testimony on an unclear point. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Perma Research and Development Company v. The Singer Company
green
2 sentences2002The sham affidavit doctrine can be traced to the Second Circuit's decision in Perma Research & Development Co. v. Singer Co., 410 F. 2d 572 (2d Cir.1969). 2002The sham affidavit doctrine can be traced to the Second Circuit’s decision in Perma Research & Development Co. v. Singer Co., 410 F.2d 572 (2d Cir.1969). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Shelcusky v. Garjulio
green
2 sentences2002Shelcusky, supra, 343 N.J.Super. at 510 , 778 A.2d 1176 . 2002Shelcusky, supra, 343 N.J.Super. at 510 , 778 A.2d 1176 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.