Southeastern Fisheries Ass'n v. Mosbacher

How courts have described this case

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

• acknowledging that, while the duty to preserve video surveillance does not include “all footage,” it does encompass the preservation of all “potentially relevant footage”
• finding that allegations of “sharp pain, followed by numbness, discoloration, and swelling, on the night in question” and continued wrist pain and bouts of numbness “demonstrate[d] the requisite injury”
• noting that, even if a plaintiff’s excessive force claim “alleges a variation on th[e] familiar theme,” any allegation that “an officer used handcuffs as a weapon against the arrestee [] falls squarely within the imagined scenario for which this rule was created”
• denying summary judgment where plaintiff testified as to continuing numbness and pain, which affected his lifestyle, MRI revealed inflammation consistent with compression injury, and another medical test confirmed nerve damage
• applying modified rule where plaintiff alleged an officer “pushed down on the handcuffs over Plaintiff’s protests and compressed them to an excessive degree, thereby causing physical injury.”
• “The most common injuries found to satisfy the injury requirement in handcuff cases are scarring and nerve damage.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).