Cited by

The party moving for summary judgment must demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact and “explain why summary judgment should be entered in its favor.” as amended (Jan.

summary judgment if “the facts produced in support of the claim or defense have so little probative value, given the quantum of evidence required, that reasonable people could not agree with the 4 RIORDAN-KARLSSON v. AZ BANK et al. Decision of the Court conclusion advanced by the proponent.”

v. Reeves, see Ariz. R. Civ.

v. Reeves , , 309-10, , 1008-09 (1990).

v. Reeves , , 309, , 1008 (1990).

v. Reeves , , 311, , 1010 (1990) (proponent of claim or defense must present evidence to survive summary judgment and directed verdict).

idence in the non-movant’s favor cannot forestall summary judgment—“affidavits that contain inadmissible evidence, that are internally inconsistent, that tend to contradict the affiant’s sworn testimony at deposition, and similar items of evidence may provide a ‘scintilla’ or create ‘the slightest doubt’ and still be insufficient to withstand a motion for summary judgment.”

v. Reeves, see Ariz. R. Civ.

v. Reeves, (noting evidence that may provide a “scintilla” or create the “slightest doubt” is not sufficient to withstand a motion for summary judgment); -61 (App. 1991) (a motion for summary judgment should not be denied simply upon speculation that some doubt, scintilla of eviden

1 In deciding the motion for summary judgment, “[t]he evidence of the non-movant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in [its] favor.” (citations omitted); -10 (1990).

("[I]t would effectively abrogate the summary judgment rule to hold that the motion should be denied simply on the speculation that some slight doubt .

v. Reeves, see also Ariz. R. Civ.