Price v. City of Charlotte, North Carolina

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that statements that one felt “embarrassed,” “degraded,” “devastated,” etc., do not create a disputed issue of fact as to entitlement to compensatory damages for emotional distress
• stating that \the rationale for the award of nominal damages being that federal courts should provide some marginal vindication for a constitutional violation\
• concluding that a defendant challenging the sufficiency of evidence regarding damages from emotional distress had preserved the issue for review by asserting at oral argument on its Rule 50(a) motion that the plaintiffs had not submitted sufficient evidence of mental or emotional distress
• noting that plaintiffs offered no evidence as to how the “alleged distress manifested itself’
• recognizing the availability of emotional damages to plaintiffs who, under an affirmative action plan, had been excluded from consideration for past promotions, even if they would not have otherwise received those promotions
• noting that, for § 1983 “plaintiff to recover more than nominal damages, his injury must have actually been caused by the challenged [unconstitutional] conduct”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).