Mann v. Taser International, 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 plaintiffs’ response failed to comply with local rule 56.1 because it was “convoluted, argumentative, and non-responsive”
• holding that, under Georgia law, the plaintiff could not prove use of a taser caused the suspect’s death
• holding that “an adverse inference is drawn from a party’s failure to preserve evidence only when the absence of that evidence is predicated on bad faith”
• holding that a medical condition is a serious medical need if the condition worsens over time
• holding that a serious medical need may be “determined by whether a delay in treating the need worsens the condition”
• holding that a serious medical need is one that “if left unattended, poses a substantial risk of serious harm.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).