Conflicting testimony can complicate summary judgment motions. Learn how courts handle conflicting testimony and how to address it in your motion.
Conflicting testimony is one of the most common challenges in litigation, and it can present significant hurdles when filing a motion for summary judgment. Summary judgment is only appropriate when there are no genuine issues of material fact, meaning that the facts of the case must be undisputed or clear. However, when testimony from witnesses conflicts, courts must carefully evaluate whether the dispute creates a genuine issue of material fact that precludes summary judgment.
In this article, Legal Husk explains how courts address conflicting testimony in summary judgment motions, and how you can navigate this challenge to increase your chances of success.
✅ Summary judgment requires the court to decide if there is a genuine dispute of material fact. If conflicting testimony creates such a dispute, the motion may be denied. However, not all conflicts automatically prevent summary judgment. Courts assess whether the conflict is substantial enough to affect the outcome of the case.
Material vs. Immaterial Conflicts: Courts focus on whether the conflicting testimony addresses material facts — facts that could impact the resolution of the case. Minor contradictions in non-essential details are unlikely to prevent summary judgment.
Example: "A witness may give conflicting testimony about the exact time of an incident, but if the time does not affect the legal issue in dispute, the conflict may not prevent summary judgment."
Genuine Dispute of Material Fact: For conflicting testimony to prevent summary judgment, it must relate to a genuine dispute that is central to the case. If the conflict doesn’t impact the legal elements of the claim, the court may still grant summary judgment.
Example: "Conflicting testimony about a defendant’s intent in a fraud case may be enough to prevent summary judgment if intent is a key element of the plaintiff's claim."
Credibility of Testimony: Courts will evaluate whether the conflicting testimony raises legitimate issues of credibility. In some cases, the court may decide that the dispute is simply one of credibility and does not preclude summary judgment.
Example: "If two witnesses contradict each other on a minor detail, the court may find that credibility is an issue for trial, but does not affect the grant of summary judgment."
🎯 Strategic Tip: Focus on material facts in your motion for summary judgment and highlight whether the conflicting testimony is relevant to the outcome of the case.
✅ Courts are required to assess whether conflicting testimony creates a genuine issue of material fact that requires a trial. If a conflict does not affect the ultimate issue of the case, the court may still grant summary judgment.
Significance of the Dispute: Courts evaluate whether the conflicting testimony is central to the case’s outcome. If the dispute concerns an immaterial fact or does not affect the legal elements of the claim, it is less likely to prevent summary judgment.
Example: "In a personal injury case, conflicting testimony about the plaintiff’s actions before the injury may not preclude summary judgment if the core issue is whether the defendant was negligent."
Consistency of Testimony: If the witnesses provide conflicting accounts but those accounts are consistent in their broader themes, courts may still allow summary judgment. Courts often prioritize the substance of testimony over minor inconsistencies.
Example: "Two witnesses may disagree on the exact words spoken during an incident, but their broader description of the event is consistent, leading the court to grant summary judgment."
Evidentiary Support: Courts will also assess whether the conflicting testimony is supported by other evidence, such as documents, physical evidence, or additional witness testimony. If the conflicting testimony is contradicted by the rest of the evidence, summary judgment may be granted.
Example: "The plaintiff's testimony contradicts the defendant’s, but video evidence supports the defendant's version of events, leading the court to grant summary judgment."
🎯 Strategic Tip: Support your motion with evidence that either corroborates your position or diminishes the significance of any conflicting testimony.
✅ While conflicting testimony may initially seem like an obstacle, you can take steps to minimize its impact on your motion for summary judgment. Addressing the conflict directly in your motion can demonstrate why it should not prevent judgment.
Highlight Lack of Material Impact: Emphasize that the conflict does not pertain to material facts or issues central to the case. Clarify why the testimony does not affect the outcome of the legal issues.
Example: "Although there is a conflict regarding the timing of the event, the central issue of negligence is not dependent on the exact timing, as the evidence shows that the defendant was clearly negligent."
Provide Supporting Evidence: If the conflicting testimony is minor or relates to a peripheral issue, present additional evidence that supports your version of events. This may include documents, physical evidence, or affidavits from other witnesses.
Example: "While there is a conflict in witness testimony regarding the plaintiff’s actions, the hospital records confirm the extent of the injuries, which corroborates the plaintiff’s version of events."
Challenge the Credibility of Opposing Testimony: If the conflict arises from testimony you believe is unreliable or biased, challenge the credibility of the opposing party's witnesses. Use evidence to demonstrate inconsistencies or bias that undermine the credibility of their testimony.
Example: "The defendant’s testimony conflicts with the physical evidence, and their failure to mention key facts during deposition raises concerns about their credibility."
Argue that the Conflict is Resolving a Legal Issue: In some cases, conflicting testimony may highlight a key legal issue that requires judicial determination. If the conflict is essential to the resolution of the case, argue that the court should resolve the issue through summary judgment rather than a trial.
Example: "Although the testimonies conflict on the defendant’s intent, the law on fraudulent misrepresentation is clear and undisputed, making summary judgment appropriate."
🎯 Strategic Tip: Address conflicts head-on in your motion and use supporting evidence to highlight why they should not prevent summary judgment.
✅ In some cases, conflicting testimony can indeed create a genuine issue of material fact that necessitates a trial. Courts will carefully analyze whether the conflict impacts the core elements of the case, such as liability, damages, or other essential issues.
Material Factual Disputes: If the conflicting testimony goes to the heart of the case and creates a reasonable dispute about the facts that could affect the legal outcome, the court may deny summary judgment and allow the case to proceed to trial.
Example: "In a wrongful termination case, conflicting testimony about whether the plaintiff was fired for misconduct or in retaliation creates a genuine issue of material fact, preventing summary judgment."
Credibility Issues: When conflicting testimonies raise significant questions about the credibility of the witnesses, the court may determine that these issues are better resolved at trial, where the jury can evaluate witness credibility.
Example: "The plaintiff’s version of events contradicts the defendant’s, and the court found that credibility issues were best left for the jury to resolve at trial."
🎯 Strategic Tip: Be prepared for the possibility of trial if the conflicting testimony involves material facts or key elements of your case that cannot be easily resolved in summary judgment.
Conflicting testimony is a common issue in litigation, but it doesn’t necessarily preclude the possibility of summary judgment. Courts will carefully evaluate whether the conflict is material to the outcome of the case and whether it creates a genuine dispute that warrants a trial. By focusing on the materiality of the conflict, providing supporting evidence, and challenging the credibility of unreliable testimony, you can strengthen your motion for summary judgment.
At Legal Husk, we help litigators navigate issues involving conflicting testimony, ensuring that their motions for summary judgment are well-supported and persuasively argued.
📌 Need help addressing conflicting testimony in your summary judgment motion?
👉 Visit:
🔗 legalhusk.com
🔗 legalhusk.com/services
📩 Ready for a court-ready motion for summary judgment at a predictable price? Contact Legal Husk for expert support.
File wisely. Litigate efficiently—Legal Husk.
Whether you are dealing with a complex family matter, facing criminal charges, or navigating the intricacies of business law, our mission is to provide you with comprehensive, compassionate, and expert legal guidance.
