Reed v. City of St. Charles, Mo.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that plaintiff may not merely point tounsupported self-serving allegations, but must “substantiate his allegations with sufficient probative evidence that would permit a finding in his favor … without resort to ‘speculation, conjecture, or fantasy’”
• holding, in an excessive force case, defendants were entitled to summary judgment because the plaintiff's “self-serving” allegations were “blatantly contradicted by the record” such that “no reasonable jury could believe them”
• holding, in an excessive force case, defendants were entitled to summary judgment because the plaintiff’s “self-serving” allegations were “blatantly contradicted by the record” such that “no reasonable jury could believe them”.
• affirming summary judgment where “no reasonable jury could have credited [the plaintiff’s] version of events”
• stating that in ruling on a motion for summary judgment, a court must view the facts \in a light most favorable to the non-moving party-as long as those facts are not so 'blatantly contradicted by the record ... that no reasonable jury could believe' them\
• affirming summary judgment where there was “overwhelming evidence” refuting the plaintiff’s version of the events in question, including deposition testimony of police officers and medical records

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).