Louisville & N. R. v. Memphis Gaslight Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that all three hours of surveillance footage of Plaintiff was relevant to the lawsuit, not just the cherry-picked segments that Defendant deemed relevant
• holding that Department of Corrections reasonably should have anticipated litigation within one week of inmate-on-inmate assault
• finding that Defendants were only negligent despite their “troublingly ad hoc video retention and 11 In their opposition, Defendants fail to provide the date on which the videos were wiped from the servers. preservation policies”
• counting inmate assaults as one of several “types of incidents [that] tend to trigger litigation”
• counting inmate assaults as one of several “types of incidents [that] tend to trigger litigation”
• noting similarity to slip-and- 13 Other courts have found the duty to arise (1

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).