The following excerpt is from Barlow v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 935 F.2d 273 (9th Cir. 1991):
The district court did not hold perjury is an insufficient grounds for a new trial. The court simply found no evidence of perjury in appellant's motion, and because merely inconsistent testimony is not adequate grounds for a new trial, it made the Rule 11 award. Order on Costs and Sanctions at 2-3; see also Bulgo v. Munoz, 863 F.2d 710, 714 (9th Cir.1988) (rejection of motion for new trial based on conflicting testimony).
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.