Hill v. Carroll County, Miss.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that a more recent study had cast doubt on the study relied on in Gutierrez and therefore it did not “extend beyond its facts”
• noting that a more recent study had cast doubt on the study relied on in Gutierrez and therefore it did not “extend beyond its facts”
• stating that Gutierrez “does [not] extend beyond its facts as a mirror of the then- unchallenged San Diego Study” and observing “[a] more recent study by Dr. Tom Neuman casts doubt on the conclusions of the San Diego Study”
• declining to give Monell claim further consideration where plaintiff had not created a genuine issue of material fact on the existence of a constitutional violation
• stating that Gutierrez “does [not] extend beyond its facts as a mirror of the then-unchallenged San Diego Study” and observing “[a] more recent study by Dr. Tom Neuman casts doubt on the conclusions of the San Diego Study”
• requiring a plaintiff to show, inter alia, injury, to succeed on a Fourth Amendment excessive force claim

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).