Cited by

v. Reeves, see Ariz. R. Civ.

v. Reeves, (“[A]ffidavits 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 judgm

v. Reeves, (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986)).

v. Reeves, , (summary judgment granted if party cannot respond with evidence demonstrating genuine issue of fact).

v. Reeves, (explaining that summary judgment is proper “if the facts produced in support of the claim .

P. 56(c); 4 A. Oral Contract.

v. Reeves, (trial court should grant 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 conclusion advanced by the proponent of the claim or defense.”).

v. Reeves, Ariz. R. Civ.