holding that credibility issues arise in summary judgment proceedings “when one litigant’s statement conflicts with another litigant’s statement over a fact to be proved” and that “summary judgment in such a case is inappropriate”
How later courts described this case
- holding that credibility issues arise in summary judgment proceedings “when one litigant’s statement conflicts with another litigant’s statement over a fact to be proved” and that “summary judgment in such a case is inappropriate”
- stating that when a litigant’s affidavit “is inconsistent with his or her earlier deposition testimony, summary judgment in that party’s favor is improper because there exists a question of credibility”
- stating that “resolution of the factual dispute will depend, at least in part, upon the credibility of the parties or their witnesses, summary judgment in such a case is inappropriate”
- stating that a credibility issue arises in summary-judgment proceedings "when one litigant's statement conflicts with another litigant's statement over a fact to be proved"
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Thomas v. Shaevitz, Unpublished Decision (9-16-1999) (1999)
Thus, Turner is inapplicable, and the first assignment of error is not well-taken and is overruled.
The opinion
Wright, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part. I concur in paragraphs one and two of the syllabus and Part II of the opinion. I disagree that the facts of this case justify the conclusion reached by the majority in Part I.