Eleventh Circuit· 7/7/2009

Garczynski v. Bradshaw

Citations

573 F.3d 1158
2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 15179
2009 WL 1929191

How courts have described this case

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

holding that “[a] ‘mere scintilla’ of evidence is insufficient; the non-moving party must produce substantial evidence in order to defeat a motion for summary judgment.”
concluding that refusal to comply with repeated commands to show one’s hands, to drop a cell phone, and then to drop the weapon pointed at the suspect’s own head together justified officers’ “escalation into deadly force”
recognizing that less is required for an officer to reasonably perceive an immediate threat when the suspect is armed “with a gun, rather than a knife”
holding that, to overcome a summary judgment motion, the non-moving party must produce substantial evidence, which requires more than a “mere scintilla” or “some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts”
concluding that the defendant officers reasonably reacted with deadly force to the imminent threat posed by a suicidal man who was ignoring their commands to drop the gun he was holding and to show his hands
holding that an officer’s testimony that he did not see a gun from far away with an obscured view did not create a genuine issue of material fact when other officers at the scene stated the suspect brandished a gun

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Dubina, Birch, Wilson

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

61 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

12 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.