holding, generally, that “an affidavit that directly contradicts prior deposition testimony is . . . insufficient to create a genuine issue of fact for trial”
How later courts described this case
- holding, generally, that “an affidavit that directly contradicts prior deposition testimony is . . . insufficient to create a genuine issue of fact for trial”
- "Basically, the `sham affidavit' rule precludes a party from creating an issue of fact to prevent summary judgment by submitting an affidavit that directly contradicts previous deposition testimony of the affiant."
- observing that the rule prevents direct contradiction
- applying the “sham affidavit” rule.
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MeGRAW, Justice,
dissenting:
(Filed June 30, 2004)
I dissent to the majority opinion because it deprives the plaintiff of her day in court. This case has been working its way through the system for a dozen years but has yet to reach a jury. Our law strongly favors a decision on the merits by a jury of one’s peers: “[T]he juror is an integral part of our democratic ideal, representing the conscience of the community.” Roberts v. Stevens Clinic Hospital, Inc., 176 W.Va. 492, 513 , 345 S.E.2d 791, 813 (1986) (McGraw, J., dissenting).
Because the majority decision denies the plaintiff any opportunity to present this case to a jury, I must respectfully dissent.