a repair shop and then placed the repaired tire back on the vehicle. (Baril Aff.) Consequently, according to information provided by the defendants, there is no certainty as to the location and state of the insured vehicle at the time of the accident. There is little Massachusetts case law available for guidance, but every court that has examined this issue has insisted that a parly may not raise an issue of fact by submitting a subsequent affidavit inconsistent with previous deposition testimony. O’Brien v. Analog Devices Inc., 34 Mass.App.Ct. 905, 906 (1993) (rescript), citing Perma Research & Dev. Corp. v. Singer Co., 410 F.2d 572, 578 (2d Cir. 1969). Radobenko v. Automated Equip. Corp., 520 F.2d 540, 544 (9th Cir. 1975). See also Lowery v. Airco, Inc. 725 F.Supp. 82 (D.Mass. 1989) (<HOLDING>). Courts are reluctant to admit a contradictory
holding party may raise jurisdictional issue at any stage of proceedings holding that due process requires an evidentiary hearing when parties submissions in contempt proceedings raise disputed issue of material fact holding that dismissal on res judicata grounds is proper under rule 12b6 unless a disputed issue of material fact exists holding that a party may not raise a disputed issue of fact by a sham affidavit no direct contradiction however in the material under consideration holding that a party may not raise an issue for the first time on appeal