# Kiser v. Caudill

> West Virginia Supreme Court · July 8, 2004 · 215 W. Va. 403

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9582565

## Case

- **Full name:** Lora D. KISER, Plaintiff Below, Appellant v. Carrel Mayo CAUDILL, M.D. Defendant Below, Appellee
- **Court:** West Virginia Supreme Court
- **Decided:** July 8, 2004
- **Citations:** 215 W. Va. 403; 599 S.E.2d 826
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by MeGRAW
- **Judges:** Maynard, Starcher, Megraw, Stareher, McGraw
- **Cited by:** 23 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9582565

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding, generally, that “an affidavit that directly contradicts prior deposition testimony is . . . insufficient to create a genuine issue of fact for trial”
- observing that the rule prevents direct contradiction
- applying the “sham affidavit” rule.

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9582565. Public record. Not legal advice.