◆ SpookStack

> = @ - @ 3 MAIORANA V. MACDONALD: In deciding whether the district court properly granted - summary judgment, we are guided by Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 and the principles discussed in Hahn v. Sargent, 523 F.2d 461 (1st Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 904 (1976). We must determine whether the defendants, as the moving parties, affirmatively demonstrated that there was ‘‘no genuine issues as to any material fact.’? Rule 56(c). In doing so, we view the record ‘‘ ‘in the light most favorable to ... the party opposing the motion,’ ’’ Haha, supra, at 464, quoting Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting System, 368 U.S..464, 473 (1962), and ‘‘indulge all inferences favorable to the party opposing the motion.’’ Hahn, supra, at 464, citing United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 634, 635 (1962). We are also required to consider whether the plaintiff’s counter- affidavits conformed to Rule 56(e),. which states in perti- nent: part: Supporting and opposing affidavits. shall be made on ‘ personal knowlédge, shall sét forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to all matters stated therein. Sworn or certified. copies of all papers or parts thereof referred to in an affidavit shall be attached thereto or served therewith. We are well aware, as was the district court, that cases like this one in which state of mind is at issue do not usually lend themselves to summary judgment. - Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting System, supra, at 473; Gual Jor- ales v. Hernandez Vega, 579 F.2d 677, 680-81 (1st Cir. 1978); 10 Wright and Miller, Federal Practice and Pro- ‘cedure: Civil § 2730 (1973). In Hahn, where state of mind was at issue, while upholding summary judgment, we indi- cated that ‘‘great circumspection is required’? in such circumstances and a trial is appropriate as. long as the party opposing summary judgment has given ‘‘some indi- cation that he can produce the requisite quantum of evi- $