Harris v. Southern Christian Leadership Conference, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that plaintiff could recover for an Article 24 claim even though the jury had found that a police officer was not guilty of assaulting the victim
• finding sufficient evidence to support a jury verdict of actual malice to preclude officer from invoking statutory immunity, where evidence showed that police officer attacked victim unprovoked, shooting and killing him when he was “unable to resist or fight back”
• finding sufficient evidence to support a jury verdict of actual malice to preclude officer from invoking statutory immunity, where evidence showed that police officer attacked victim unprovoked, shooting and killing him when he was “unable to resist or fight back”
• “The County asserts that, as a matter of law, the Espinas’ Article 24 claim should not have been submitted to the jury because such a claim can only be asserted via an Article 26 claim. We disagree.”
• evidence of two prior incidents where the defendant officer was involved in violent encounters with members of the public was admissible to show motive, intent, and modus operandi, as well as to rebut officer’s testimony regarding his use of force

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).