Legal Opinion

Pettiford v. Aggarwal

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided July 14, 2010No. 2009-1602PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtO’Connor, J.

{¶ 1} In this appeal, we address whether an affidavit of a nonparty expert that contradicts the expert’s deposition testimony can be used to create a genuine issue of material fact and defeat summary judgment. Appellant, Rajendra Aggarwal, M.D., asserts that appellee, Barbara Pettiford, submitted a sham expert affidavit1 in opposition to Dr. Aggarwal’s motion for summary judgment. *414Dr. Aggarwal urges us to extend our holding in Byrd v. Smith, 110 Ohio St.3d 24, 2006-Ohio-3455, 850 N.E.2d 47, to contradictory affidavits of nonparty expert witnesses and hold that a sham affidavit may not be used…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Turner v. TurnerOhio Supreme Court · 1993
  3. Jiminez Ex Rel. Estate of Serrano v. All American Rathskeller, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2007
  4. Camfield Tires, Inc. v. Michelin Tire CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1983
  5. Byrd v. SmithOhio Supreme Court · 2006

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. DeepRock Disposal Solutions, L.L.C. v. Forté Prods., L.L.C.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2021
  2. Thomas v. MurryOhio Court of Appeals · 2021
  3. Thevenin v. White Castle Mgt. Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2016
  4. Wulf v. Bravo Brio Restaurant Group, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2019
  5. Clinton v. Faurecia Exhaust Sys., Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2012

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API