Cited by

Banbury v. Omnitrition Int’l, Inc.

See In re 21 Petition for Distribution of Attorney’s Fees between Stowman L. Firm, P.A., d 755, 759 n.2 (Minn. 2015) (stating that quantum meruit is “a claim in equity as restitution for the value of a benefit conferred in the absence of a contract under a theory of unjust enrichment”); Banbury v. Omnitrition Int’l, Inc., (stating that “the doctrine of promissory estoppel only applies where no contract exists”); Southtown Plumbing, (stating that “[r]elief under the theory of unjust enrichment is

See Banbury v. Omnitrition Int’l Inc.

5 As such, “promissory estoppel only applies where no contract exists.” Banbury v. Omnitrition Int’l, Inc., see also Del Hayes, d at 593.

Ultimately, we review a district court ’s decision whether 2 The doctrine of promissory estoppel “only appli es where no contract exists.” Banbury v. Omnitrition Int’l, Inc.

See Banbury v. Omnitrition Intern, Inc.

The district court relied on Banbury v. Omnitrition Int’l, Inc., where this court held “a self-serving affidavit that contradicts earlier damaging deposition testimony is not sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact.”

See Banbury v. Omnitrition Int’l, Inc., (“A self-serving affidavit that contradicts earlier damaging deposition testimony is not sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact.

Banbury v. Omnitrition Int'l, Inc.

See Banbury v. Omnitrition Int’l, Inc., .

Cf. Banbury v. Omnitrition Int’l, Inc., (“A self-serving affidavit .

Camfield Tires, Inc. v. Michelin Tire Corp., 719 F.2d 1361, 1365 (8th Cir. 1983) (“If a party who has been examined at length on deposition could raise an issue of fact simply by submitting an affidavit contradicting his own earlier testimony, this would greatly diminish the utility of summary judgment as a procedure for screening out sham issues of fact.”); Banbury v. Omnitrition Int’l Inc., (“A self-serving affidavit that contradicts earlier damaging deposition testimony is not sufficient to c

“A self-serving affidavit that contradicts earlier damaging deposition testimony is not sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact.” Banbury v. Omnitrition Int.’l Inc.

“[T]he doctrine of promissory estoppel only applies where no contract exists.” Banbury v. Omnitrition Int’l, Inc.

Although “[a] self-serving affidavit that contradicts earlier damaging deposition testimony is not sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact,” Banbury v. Omnitrition Int’l, Inc., Rogge’s affidavit is consistent with his earlier deposition testimony.

Banbury v. Omnitrition Int'l, Inc.

But “self- serving affidavit[s] that contradict[] earlier damaging [statements of the party are] not sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact.” Banbury v. Omnitrition Int’l., Inc.

2 After his deposition, Hansen produced an affidavit saying he had disclosed the suspension to Hurd, but, as the district court noted, “[a] self-serving affidavit that contradicts earlier damaging deposition testimony is not sufficient to create a general issue of material fact,” Banbury v. Omnitriton Int’l, Inc., and such an affidavit is not the “clear and convincing evidence” required by Minn. Stat. § 554.02, subd.

“The construction and effect of an unambiguous contract are questions of law and reviewable de novo.” Banbury v. Omnitrition Int’l

Banbury v. Omnitrition Int’l, Inc.

Banbury v. Omnitrition Int’l, Inc.

See Camfield Tires, Inc. v. Michelin Tire Corp., 719 F.2d 1361, 1365 (8th Cir.1983) (adopting the general rule, but recognizing an exception for cases in which an affidavit explains and clarifies the deposition statements, rather than simply contradicting them); see also Banbury v. Omnitrition Int'l, Inc., (noting that a post-deposition affidavit may raise a factual issue when the deposition reveals confusion or mistake and when the affidavit seeks to explain the deposition testimony).

(inability to definitively recall facts to support elements of claim results in no direct evidence that would avoid summary judgment) (order op.); see also Banbury v. Omnitrition Int’l, Inc., (“self-serving affidavit that contradicts earlier damaging deposition testimony is not sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact”) (citing Camfield Tires, Inc. v. Michelin Tire Corp., 719 F.2d 1361, 1365 (8th Cir.1983)).

See Banbury v. Omnitrition Int’l, Inc., (holding “[a] self-serving affidavit that contradicts earlier damaging deposition testimony is not sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact”).

To support this argument, respondent cites Banbury v. Omnitrition Int’l, Inc., (same principle); but that case governs prior sworn testimony in a deposition and is inapplicable here.

(holding promissory estoppel applies only where contract does not exist).

This court has stated that a “self-serving affidavit that contradicts earlier damaging deposition testimony is not sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact.” Banbury v. Omnitrition Int’l., (citing Camfield Tires v. Michelin Tire Corp., 719 F.2d 1361, 1365 (8th Cir.1983)).