This form is used for summary judgment that is accompanied by one or more affidavits executed by the moving party or by others having knowledge of the facts. Objections to pleadings, such as affidavits, that are insufficient in substance or in form may be raised by a motion to strike pursuant to Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This rule has been adopted by most states in one form or another.
Oregon Motion of Defendant to Strike Affidavit in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment and Notice of Motion to Strike In Oregon, the Motion of Defendant to Strike Affidavit in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment is a legal document used during a court proceeding. This motion is filed by the defendant who wishes to challenge the validity or admissibility of an affidavit presented by the plaintiff in support of their motion for summary judgment. By filing this motion, the defendant aims to strike the affidavit from consideration by the court. The affidavit, a sworn statement made by an individual with personal knowledge of the case, is often submitted as evidence to support the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. However, the defendant may contend that the affidavit is either inadequate, does not meet the required legal standards, contains false statements, or is based on hearsay evidence. The defendant bases their motion on various grounds, some of which may include: 1. Lack of Personal Knowledge: The defendant argues that the affine lacks firsthand knowledge of the facts presented in the affidavit. They contend that the statements made are based on speculation or second-hand information, making the affidavit inadmissible. 2. Hearsay: The defendant claims that the affidavit relies on hearsay evidence, which is an out-of-court statement made by another person that is offered for the truth of the matter asserted. Hearsay is generally not admissible as evidence unless it falls within an exception defined by Oregon law. 3. Inadequate Statement of Facts: The defendant asserts that the affidavit fails to provide specific, detailed, and relevant facts necessary to support the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. They argue that the affidavit lacks the required level of factual information to meet the burden of proof. 4. Authenticity and Accuracy: The defendant may challenge the authenticity or accuracy of the affidavit. They could argue that the affine has misrepresented facts or omitted important information, rendering the affidavit unreliable. It is important to note that this motion is distinct from the Notice of Motion to Strike. In some cases, the defendant may file both motions concurrently or separately. The Notice of Motion to Strike formally notifies the court and the opposing party that the defendant intends to request the striking of the affidavit. In conclusion, the Oregon Motion of Defendant to Strike Affidavit in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment and Notice of Motion to Strike provide a means for the defendant to challenge the admissibility or validity of the affidavit presented by the plaintiff. By filing this motion, the defendant seeks to exclude the affidavit from consideration by the court due to various grounds, such as lack of personal knowledge, hearsay, inadequate statement of facts, or authenticity and accuracy concerns.
Oregon Motion of Defendant to Strike Affidavit in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment and Notice of Motion to Strike In Oregon, the Motion of Defendant to Strike Affidavit in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment is a legal document used during a court proceeding. This motion is filed by the defendant who wishes to challenge the validity or admissibility of an affidavit presented by the plaintiff in support of their motion for summary judgment. By filing this motion, the defendant aims to strike the affidavit from consideration by the court. The affidavit, a sworn statement made by an individual with personal knowledge of the case, is often submitted as evidence to support the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. However, the defendant may contend that the affidavit is either inadequate, does not meet the required legal standards, contains false statements, or is based on hearsay evidence. The defendant bases their motion on various grounds, some of which may include: 1. Lack of Personal Knowledge: The defendant argues that the affine lacks firsthand knowledge of the facts presented in the affidavit. They contend that the statements made are based on speculation or second-hand information, making the affidavit inadmissible. 2. Hearsay: The defendant claims that the affidavit relies on hearsay evidence, which is an out-of-court statement made by another person that is offered for the truth of the matter asserted. Hearsay is generally not admissible as evidence unless it falls within an exception defined by Oregon law. 3. Inadequate Statement of Facts: The defendant asserts that the affidavit fails to provide specific, detailed, and relevant facts necessary to support the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. They argue that the affidavit lacks the required level of factual information to meet the burden of proof. 4. Authenticity and Accuracy: The defendant may challenge the authenticity or accuracy of the affidavit. They could argue that the affine has misrepresented facts or omitted important information, rendering the affidavit unreliable. It is important to note that this motion is distinct from the Notice of Motion to Strike. In some cases, the defendant may file both motions concurrently or separately. The Notice of Motion to Strike formally notifies the court and the opposing party that the defendant intends to request the striking of the affidavit. In conclusion, the Oregon Motion of Defendant to Strike Affidavit in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment and Notice of Motion to Strike provide a means for the defendant to challenge the admissibility or validity of the affidavit presented by the plaintiff. By filing this motion, the defendant seeks to exclude the affidavit from consideration by the court due to various grounds, such as lack of personal knowledge, hearsay, inadequate statement of facts, or authenticity and accuracy concerns.
