Where the case of a plaintiff is based on an inference or inferences, it must fail upon proof of undisputed facts inconsistent with such inference or inferences. Trippy v. Sams, 512 F. Supp. 5, 7 (E.D.Tenn. 1980). In the case revealed by all the evidence which the jury heard, plaintiff's claim that the Bee Gees had access to his song, and thus copied it before they created "How Deep Is Your Love," is rebutted by the undisputed fact that defendants, before composing the accused song, had never heard of plaintiff or his music.

Moorhead v. Gov't ofthe V.I., et al., 542 F. Supp. 213 215 Sands v.Starke County Board of Commissioners, 530 F. Supp. 712 Orenstein v. Bond, 528 F. Supp. 513 517 Gannon, et al. v. Daley, et al., 531 F. Supp. 287 289 Joseph, et al. v. Bond, et al., 522 F. Supp. 1363 1364 Joos v. Bond, et al., 526 F. Supp. 780 784 Gibbons, et al. v. Bond, et al., 523 F. Supp. 843 850 Kuhlmann v. Bloomfield Township, et al., 521 F. Supp. 1242 1244 Fox Co., et al. v.Schoemehl, etc., et al., 519 F. Supp. 849 851 Brunton, et al. v. U.S.A., 518 F. Supp. 223 225 Brady v. Paterson, et al., 515 F. Supp. 695 696 Sweeney, et al. v. Bond, et al., 519 F. Supp. 124 127 Soto v. Chardon, et al., 514 F. Supp. 339 341 Layden v. Costello, et al., 517 F. Supp. 860 862 Garretto v. Cooperman, et al., 510 F. Supp. 816 818 Shakman, et al. v. The Democratic Organization ofCook County, et al., 508 F. Supp. 1063 1068 Mirabella, et al. v. The Board of Elections of the City of NewYork, 507 F. Supp. 338 339 Trippy, et al. v.Sams, 512 F. Supp. 5 6 , (4th Cir. 1984); , (6th Cir. 1983); , (7th Cir. 1983); , (7th Cir. 1983); , (5th Cir. 1983); , (D.C. Cir. 1982); , (11th Cir. 1982); , (8th Cir. 1982); , (8th Cir. 1982); , (8th Cir. 1982); , (3d Cir. 1981); , (3d Cir. 1981); , (7th Cir. 1981); , (5th Cir. Unit A 1981); , (1st Cir. 1981); , (3d Cir. 1980); , n. 1 (3d Cir. 1980); , (ND Ind. 1984); , (ND Ind. 1984); , (ED Pa. 1983); , (WD La. 1983); , (ED Pa. 1983); , (ED Mo. 1983); , (SD W.V.A. 1983); , (D.R.I. 1983); , (ND Ill. 1983); , (D.Del. 1983); , (SD N.Y. 1983); (ND Ill. 1983); , (Mid.D.N.C. 1982); , (ND Ill. 1982); (Mid.D.La. 1982); , (Mid.D.Pa. 1982); , (ND N.Y. 1982); , (ED N.Y. 1982); (ED Pa. 1982); , (D.N.D. 1982); , (SD N.Y. 1982); , (DC V.I. 1982); (ND Ind. 1982); , (ED Mo. 1981); , (ND Ill. 1981); , (WD Mo. 1981); , (ED Mo. 1981); , (WD Mo. 1981); , (ED Wis. 1981); , (ED Mo. 1981); , (SD Ohio 1981); , (ND N.Y. 198

And, while Defendant attacks Plaintiff for not having proof that this statement referred specifically to Plaintiff's support for Snyder, it is noteworthy that Defendant offers no alternative interpretation. See, e.g., Trippy v. Sams, 512 F.Supp. 5, 7 (E.D. Tenn. 1980) (refusing to accept plaintiff's suggested inference regarding employer's statement where "positive, unimpeached and otherwise uncontradicted testimony" defeated that inference). Indeed, the Court struggles to imagine a construction of the phrase "loyalty to the department" that does not invoke Plaintiff's support for the sheriff's political rival.