a verdict for that party. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. at 250-51, 106 S.Ct. at 2511; and Friou v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 948 F.2d 972, 974 (5th Cir.1991); Robertson v. Arco Oil & Gas Co., 948 F.2d 132, 133 (5th Ci ed.R.Civ.P. 56(f). 52 . Exxon Corp. v. Baton Rouge Oil, 77 F.3d at 853; Stults v.. Conoco, Inc., 76 F.3d at 654; Hassan v. Lubbock Independent School District, 55 F.3d 1075, 1078 (5th Cir.1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 995, 116 S.Ct. 532, 133 L.Ed.2d 438 (1995); Elliott v. Lynn, 38 F.3d 188, 190, (5th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1117, 115 S.Ct. 1976, 131 L.Ed.2d 865 (1995); Matagorda County v. Russell Law, 19 F.3d 215, 217 (5th Cir.1994); Hibernia National Bank v. Carner, 997 F.2d 94, 97 (5th Cir.1993). 53 . Stults v. Conoco, Inc., 76 F.3d at 654-55, (<HOLDING>); Engstrom v. First National Bank of Eagle
holding that hearsay evidence may be considered on summary judgment if the same evidence would be admissible in another form at trial holding admissible certain evidence which would not have been obtained but for violations of constitutional requirements holding that nonenglish materials submitted for review may not be considered during the pretrial process or become part of the record holding that even in separate trial other crimes evidence would not have been admissible and identification testimony would have been admissible holding that only materials which were included in the pretrial record and that would have been admissible evidence may be considered