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.
8 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Maryland 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 |
|---|---|---|
Pittman v. Atlantic Realty Co.green2 sentences2008This Court first considered the sham affidavit rule in Pittman v. Atlantic Realty, 359 Md. 513 , 754 A.2d 1030 (2000) where we summarized the rule, as originally articulated in Perma, as follows: “Stated strictly, the Perma [sham affidavit] rule is that, if an interested party has personal knowledge of the relevant facts, and if that party cannot explain a material contradiction between deposition testimony and a subsequent affidavit by the acquisition of newly acquired evidence, then a trial court may disregard the affidavit as a ‘sham,’ i.e., as one failing to ‘raise [ ] any issue which [the 2008This Court first considered the sham affidavit rule in Pittman v. Atlantic Realty, 359 Md. 513 , 754 A.2d 1030 (2000) where we summarized the rule, as originally articulated in Perma, as follows: “Stated strictly, the Perma [sham affidavit] rule is that, if an interested party has personal knowledge of the relevant facts, and if that party cannot explain a material contradiction between deposition testimony and a subsequent affidavit by the acquisition of newly acquired evidence, then a trial court may disregard the affidavit as a ‘sham,’ i.e., as one failing to ‘raise [ ] any issue which [the | 4 | 6 |
William Radobenko and Mary G. Radobenko, His Wife, Individually and as Husband and Wife v. Automated Equipment Corporation, a California Corporationgreen2 sentences2008Corp., 520 F.2d 540, 544 (9th Cir.1975)). 2008Corp., 520 F.2d 540, 544 (9th Cir.1975)). | 3 | 3 |
George A. Darnell v. Target Storesgreen2 sentences2000Thus, the court affirmed the exclusion of the affidavits on the ground of “unfair surprise.” The court also adopted a rule of federal caselaw (the sham affidavit rule) according to which “a party-may not defeat summary judgment by offering an affidavit which contradicts unambiguous testimony previously elicited during a deposition.” Id. at 267 , 732 A.2d at 918 (citing Darnell v. Target Stores, 16 F.3d 174, 176-77 (7th Cir.1994); Barwick v. Celotex Corp., 736 F.2d 946, 959-60 (4th Cir.1984); Van T. 2000Thus, the court affirmed the exclusion of the affidavits on the ground of "unfair surprise." The court also adopted a rule of federal caselaw (the sham affidavit rule) according to which "a party may not defeat summary judgment by offering an affidavit which contradicts unambiguous testimony previously elicited during a deposition." Id. at *1037 267, 732 A.2d at 918 (citing Darnell v. Target Stores, 16 F.3d 174, 176-77 (7th Cir.1994); Barwick v. Celotex Corp., 736 F.2d 946, 959-60 (4th Cir.1984); Van T. | 1 | 1 |
Camfield Tires, Inc. v. Michelin Tire Corporationgreen1 sentence2000See also Camfield Tires, Inc. v. Michelin Tire Corp., 719 F.2d 1361, 1365 (8th Cir.1983) (characterizing asserted facts as "not genuine" because "the circumstances in this case do not suggest legitimate reasons for [the nonmoving party's] filing of the inconsistent affidavit"). *1042 An attempt to narrow the operation of the sham affidavit rule is found in Tippens v. Celotex Corp., 805 F.2d 949 (11th Cir.1986), where the court said: "The purpose of summary judgment is to separate real, genuine issues from those which are formal or pretended. | 1 | 1 |
Van T. Junkins and Associates, Inc., an Alabama Corporation v. U.S. Industries, Inc.green2 sentences2000Junkins & Assocs. v. U.S. Indus., Inc., 736 F.2d 656, 657-59 (11th Cir.1984)). 2000Junkins & Assocs. v. U.S. Indus., Inc., 736 F.2d 656, 657-59 (11th Cir.1984)). | 1 | 1 |
Arnold G. Barwick v. The Celotex Corporation, Keene Corporation, Pittsburgh Corning Corporation, H.K. Porter, Forty-Eight Insulations, Inc.green2 sentences2000Thus, the court affirmed the exclusion of the affidavits on the ground of “unfair surprise.” The court also adopted a rule of federal caselaw (the sham affidavit rule) according to which “a party-may not defeat summary judgment by offering an affidavit which contradicts unambiguous testimony previously elicited during a deposition.” Id. at 267 , 732 A.2d at 918 (citing Darnell v. Target Stores, 16 F.3d 174, 176-77 (7th Cir.1994); Barwick v. Celotex Corp., 736 F.2d 946, 959-60 (4th Cir.1984); Van T. 2000Thus, the court affirmed the exclusion of the affidavits on the ground of "unfair surprise." The court also adopted a rule of federal caselaw (the sham affidavit rule) according to which "a party may not defeat summary judgment by offering an affidavit which contradicts unambiguous testimony previously elicited during a deposition." Id. at *1037 267, 732 A.2d at 918 (citing Darnell v. Target Stores, 16 F.3d 174, 176-77 (7th Cir.1994); Barwick v. Celotex Corp., 736 F.2d 946, 959-60 (4th Cir.1984); Van T. | 1 | 1 |
William L. Tippens, Deceased, Nell P. Tippens, Individually and as Widow of William L. Tippens v. The Celotex Corporationgreen2 sentences2000An attempt to narrow the operation of the sham affidavit rule is found in Tippens v. Celotex Corp., 805 F.2d 949 (11th Cir.1986), where the court said: “The purpose of summary judgment is to separate real, genuine issues from those which are formal or pretended. 2000See also Camfield Tires, Inc. v. Michelin Tire Corp., 719 F.2d 1361, 1365 (8th Cir.1983) (characterizing asserted facts as "not genuine" because "the circumstances in this case do not suggest legitimate reasons for [the nonmoving party's] filing of the inconsistent affidavit"). *1042 An attempt to narrow the operation of the sham affidavit rule is found in Tippens v. Celotex Corp., 805 F.2d 949 (11th Cir.1986), where the court said: "The purpose of summary judgment is to separate real, genuine issues from those which are formal or pretended. | 1 | 1 |
Berkey v. Deliagreen2 sentences2000See Berkey v. Delia, 287 Md. 302, 332 , 413 A.2d 170 (1980) (acknowledging that credibility of witnesses may not be weighed on motion for summary judgment); Faith, 127 Md.App. at 753 , 736 A.2d 422 (stating that in resolving a summary judgment motion, the trial court may not determine the credibility of witnesses); cf. Pittman v. Atlantic Realty Co., 359 Md. 513 , 754 A.2d 1030 (2000) (rejecting the sham affidavit rule at summaiy judgment, which provides that a party may not defeat summary judgment by offering an affidavit that contradicts unambiguous testimony previously elicited during a dep 2000See Berkey v. Delia, 287 Md. 302, 332 , 413 A.2d 170 (1980) (acknowledging that credibility of witnesses may not be weighed on motion for summary judgment); Faith, 127 Md.App. at 753 , 736 A.2d 422 (stating that in resolving a summary judgment motion, the trial court may not determine the credibility of witnesses); cf. Pittman v. Atlantic Realty Co., 359 Md. 513 , 754 A.2d 1030 (2000) (rejecting the sham affidavit rule at summaiy judgment, which provides that a party may not defeat summary judgment by offering an affidavit that contradicts unambiguous testimony previously elicited during a dep | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hinch v. Lucy Webb Hayes National Training School for Deaconesses
green
2 sentences2020To conclude, the court emphasized that, “at a minimum, for the sham affidavit doctrine to apply, there must be a clear and explicit contradiction between what is said at the deposition and what is said in the affidavit.” Id. (emphasis added). 2008The court found these statements reconcilable, reasoning: “[a]t a minimum, for the sham affidavit doctrine to apply, there must be a clear and explicit contradiction between what is said at deposition and what is said in the affidavit.” Id. | 3 | 2008–2020 |
Pittman v. Atlantic Realty Co.
green
2 sentences2000Thus, the court affirmed the exclusion of the affidavits on the ground of “unfair surprise.” The court also adopted a rule of federal caselaw (the sham affidavit rule) according to which “a party-may not defeat summary judgment by offering an affidavit which contradicts unambiguous testimony previously elicited during a deposition.” Id. at 267 , 732 A.2d at 918 (citing Darnell v. Target Stores, 16 F.3d 174, 176-77 (7th Cir.1994); Barwick v. Celotex Corp., 736 F.2d 946, 959-60 (4th Cir.1984); Van T. 2000Thus, the court affirmed the exclusion of the affidavits on the ground of “unfair surprise.” The court also adopted a rule of federal caselaw (the sham affidavit rule) according to which “a party-may not defeat summary judgment by offering an affidavit which contradicts unambiguous testimony previously elicited during a deposition.” Id. at 267 , 732 A.2d at 918 (citing Darnell v. Target Stores, 16 F.3d 174, 176-77 (7th Cir.1994); Barwick v. Celotex Corp., 736 F.2d 946, 959-60 (4th Cir.1984); Van T. | 2 | 2000–2000 |
Faith v. Keefer
green
2 sentences2000See Berkey v. Delia, 287 Md. 302, 332 , 413 A.2d 170 (1980) (acknowledging that credibility of witnesses may not be weighed on motion for summary judgment); Faith, 127 Md.App. at 753 , 736 A.2d 422 (stating that in resolving a summary judgment motion, the trial court may not determine the credibility of witnesses); cf. Pittman v. Atlantic Realty Co., 359 Md. 513 , 754 A.2d 1030 (2000) (rejecting the sham affidavit rule at summaiy judgment, which provides that a party may not defeat summary judgment by offering an affidavit that contradicts unambiguous testimony previously elicited during a dep 2000See Berkey v. Delia, 287 Md. 302, 332 , 413 A.2d 170 (1980) (acknowledging that credibility of witnesses may not be weighed on motion for summary judgment); Faith, 127 Md.App. at 753 , 736 A.2d 422 (stating that in resolving a summary judgment motion, the trial court may not determine the credibility of witnesses); cf. Pittman v. Atlantic Realty Co., 359 Md. 513 , 754 A.2d 1030 (2000) (rejecting the sham affidavit rule at summaiy judgment, which provides that a party may not defeat summary judgment by offering an affidavit that contradicts unambiguous testimony previously elicited during a dep | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.