Garczynski v. Bradshaw

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).