James v. Lopeman

How courts have described this case

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

• refusing to apply spoliation against a plaintiff where the defendant was arguably at fault
• refusing to apply spoliation against a plaintiff where the defendant was arguably at fault
• plaintiff who issued a rule returnable to salvage yard to preserve the brake parts constituted a diligent effort to preserve the parts
• defendants were at all times in possession or control of the brake parts
• where the policy considerations behind the rule — preventing fraudulent claims and removing plaintiffs from being in a position of deciding whether to preserve the product— are absent, the rule should not apply
• defendant who retained control over allegedly defective brakes that eventually were missing did not deserve summary judgment based upon the spoilation of the brakes; the policy behind the spoilation of evidence would be thwarted where plaintiff was not in a position to engage in any wrongdoing

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).