Cited by

P. 56(e) (opposing party must set forth "specific *1020 facts" to defeat a motion for summary judgment); Florez v. Sargeant , , 526, , 255 (1996) ("[A]ffidavits that only set forth ultimate facts or conclusions of law can neither support nor defeat a motion for summary judgment.").

(“[A]ffidavits that only set forth ultimate facts or conclusions of law can neither support nor defeat a motion for summary judgment.”).

And she opined that Manor Care had provided negligently substandard care when it failed to follow up with a medical professional as Shaw’s condition 10 In its answering brief, Manor Care correctly asserts that, -27, -56 (1996), a court may grant summary judgment in the face of an expert’s affidavit if that affidavit is “conclusory.” Manor Care then argues the trial court properly rejected the affidavit of the doctor, Leonard Williams, M.D., on the basis it was flawed in such a way.

(“[A]ffidavits that only set forth ultimate facts or conclusions of law can neither support nor defeat a motion for summary judgment.”).

(statutory section headings, though not law, can help resolve ambiguities).

P. 56(e)(4); see, (stating self-serving assertions which are not supported by the factual record are insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment); Margaret H. v. Ariz. Dep't of Econ.

This is particularly true given that the Legislature’s limitations periods and savings statute involve “very delicate policy decisions that properly belong to the legislative branch of government.” –29, –58 (1996); see also Albano, 227 Ariz. at 127–28 ¶ 29, 254 P.3d at 366–67 (declining tolling when it conflicts with statute of repose; “[i]f the Legislature wishes to permit class action tolling under [A.R.S.]

Margaret H. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.

-27, -56 (1996) (self-serving affidavits or affidavits setting forth ultimate facts or legal conclusions lack “relevant foundation” and “can neither support nor defeat a motion for summary judgment”).

(“[A]ffidavits that only set forth ultimate facts or conclusions of law can neither support nor defeat a motion for summary judgment.”).

¶ 28, (“[A]ffidavits that only set forth ultimate facts or conclusions of law can neither support nor defeat a motion for summary judgment.”).

The declaration’s , (“[Affidavits that only set forth ultimate facts or conclusions of law can neither support nor defeat a motion for summary judgment.” (emphasis added)).

(“If the legislature wants to broaden the category of disability to toll the statute of limitations .

“An expert affidavit opposing a motion for summary judgment must set forth ‘specific facts’ to support an opinion.” quoting Ariz. R. Crim.

163 n. 2, ¶20, , 250 n. 2 (App.2006) (“Although title and section headings of statutes are not law, we may look to them for guidance.”); , (“Although section headings are not law ...

-29 , -58 (1996) (noting legislature enacts statutes of limitations to “protect against the nightmare of stale claims” and that “the weighing, balancing, and policy making” that go into establishing the limitations periods is a legislative task).

don’t think that CPS offered the kind of services that would really help me.” ¶21 “[A]ffidavits that only set forth ultimate facts or conclusions of law can neither support nor defeat a motion for summary judgment.”

In the face of Arizona’s extensive and elaborate statutory scheme, it is for the legislature, not this court, to weigh the policy considerations and determine whether any statutory change is appropriate or necessary.7 (noting that “delicate policy decisions” often involve “the weighing, balancing, and policy making that .

Flórez v. Sargeant, 185 Ariz. 521

Florez v. Sargeant, 185 Ariz. 521

§ 33-934 indicates that the statute governs an “action to enforce [a health care provider] lien.” (while section headings are not law, they may be of use in interpreting statute).