Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Gallagher v. Magner Ex Rel. City of St. Paul's Department of Neighborhood Housing & Property Improvement, 619 F.3d 823 (2010)

Citation
Gallagher v. Magner Ex Rel. City of St. Paul's Department of Neighborhood Housing & Property Improvement, 619 F.3d 823 (2010)
Parent Document
Gallagher v. Magner Ex Rel. City of St. Paul's Department of Neighborhood Housing & Property Improvement, 619 F.3d 823 (2010)
Effective Date
2010-09-01

Other Sections in This Document (106)

Full Text

1,032 chars
-27-
Meysembourg’s affidavit, which essentially mirrors the argument in Appellants’ brief.
Notably, Meysembourg’s affidavit merely states that he “learned” this troublesome
story without any explanation of how he learned it. Appellants “may not rest on mere
allegations,” but instead must “set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine
issue for trial.” Postscript Enters. v. City of Bridgeton, 905 F.2d 223, 226 (8th Cir.
1990) (quotation omitted). Affidavits are one way to set forth such facts, but “the
affidavits must be made on personal knowledge, must set forth facts which would be
admissible in evidence, and must show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to
testify to the matters stated.” Id. Under these standards, Appellants’ proffered
evidence is insufficient. Alternatively, Appellants’ claim fails because they have not
explained what predicate act they are alleging. General allegations of inter-
governmental cooperation and use of phrases like “buy in” are not enough to
formulate a RICO claim.