Taxpayers of Washington Parish v. Police Jury of Washington Parish

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that a correction officer’s use of force to break up a fight did not rise to the level of constitutional violation
• noting that the “obligation to preserve is attendant only upon ‘the party having control over the evidence . . . at the time it was destroyed’”
• acknowledging that the loss of a front tooth might be enough for pre-trial detainee to sustain a § 1983 claim against a corrections officer under the Fourteenth Amendment
• finding that Plaintiff had failed to demonstrate that video footage would support his claim
• citing, inter alia, In re State Police Litig., 88 F.3d 111, 127 (2d Cir. 1996) (“The availability of qualified immunity depends on the resolution of these fact issues.”)
• collecting cases for the proposition that, “in the correctional context, a duty to preserve may attach when an inmate is in a fight or when an inmate files grievances about the incident”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).