Broussard v. Maples

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that district court judge was “well within his discretion” in allowing video testimony by nonparty inmate witness
• noting that a reasonable jury could have relied on a nonmoving party’s testimony
• overturning judgment as a matter of law in favor of defendants – Anderson and Cochran – who allegedly drafted and served a disciplinary ticket on plaintiff, where plaintiff presented evidence that defendants had a retaliatory motive for serving the ticket
• “[U]nder Rule 43(a), the judge has discretion to allow live testimony by video for ‘good cause in compelling circumstances and with appropriate safeguards.’”
• “[U]nder Rule 43(a), the judge has discretion to allow live testimony by video for ‘good cause in compelling circumstances and with appropriate safeguards.’”
• “But a retaliation claim only requires evidence that the plaintiff’s protected activity was ‘at least a motivating factor’ for the retaliatory action.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).