holding that statements made by witnesses who later recanted those statements in affidavits could not be considered in opposition to summary judgment because “a suggestion that admissible evidence might be found in the future is not enough to defeat a motion for summary judgment”
How later courts described this case
- holding that statements made by witnesses who later recanted those statements in affidavits could not be considered in opposition to summary judgment because “a suggestion that admissible evidence might be found in the future is not enough to defeat a motion for summary judgment”
- reasoning there was no indication that the letter in Offshore Aviation could not be reduced to admissible evidence and the record illustrated no impediment to the writer o£ the letter testifying at trial
- refusing to consider hearsay evidence offered in opposition to a motion for summary judgment where there was nothing in the record suggesting that there were any witnesses who would be able to testify at trial from their personal knowledge of the matters recounted by the hearsay declarant
- explaining that otherwise admissible evidence may be “submitted in inadmissible form at the summary judgment stage, though at trial it must be submitted in admissible form”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
PROPST, District Judge,
concurring specially:
I concur in Judge Cox’s well-reasoned opinion. I write separately only to address the opinion in Parker v. Williams, 862 F.2d 1471 (11th Cir.1989).
I recognize that Parker v. Williams apparently holds that Alabama counties and sheriffs are “partners” in the operation of jails. I do not agree that Alabama law provides a reasonable basis for such a holding. I respectfully suggest that sheriffs and counties have independent obligations with reference to jails. The counties’ sole responsibilities, under Alabama law, relate to the jail facilities.
I find no Alabama law which gives counties any authority to run or operate jails. Under Alabama law, the sole authority for “running” or operating jails and hiring jailors is placed with sheriffs. In my opinion, the mere fact that counties provide jail facilities and funds for salaries, etc. does not make them “partners” of the sheriff in the operation of jails. 1 Counties have no more “control” over the “running” or operation of jails than they have over law enforcement by the sheriffs. Sheriffs also “hire and train” law enforcement officers with county funds. My full reasoning is addressed in Turquitt v. Jefferson, County, 929 F.Supp. 1451 , (N.D.Ala.1996).