Douglas Edwards v. City of Philadelphia and Officer Haworth, James, Badge No. 2944

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that the District Court’s final instructions “sufficiently negated any prejudice that might have resulted from [defense] counsel’s errant arguments to the jury.”
• explaining that it is improper to “encourage[] the jury to depart from neutrality and to decide the case on the basis of personal interest and bias rather than on the evidence”
• citingGo mez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640, 100 S.Ct. 1920, 64 L.Ed.2d 572 (1980)
• rejecting argument that the burden to demonstrate excessive use of force is different in the context of a battery claim than in the context of a 1983 claim
• “[A] clear and complete jury instruction on the elements of the claim asserted and on the allocation of the burdens of proof, whenever given, is sufficient to cure harm caused by a ‘Golden Rule’ argument.”
• “[A] clear and complete jury instruction on the elements of the claim asserted and on the allocation of the burdens of proof . . . is sufficient to cure harm caused by a ‘Golden Rule’ argument.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).