Veiga v. McGee

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that reviewing court is compelled to uphold jury verdict under Rule 50 \even in a close case\ unless no reasonable jury could have reached the same conclusion
• yelling, screaming, and cursing at police officer in hotel parking lot, loudly enough to “attract the attention of other guests in the hotel,” does not constitute disorderly conduct
• “The district court correctly instructed the jury that ‘[i]t would be unlawful for the police officers to detain Mr. Veiga for refusing to answer their questions or for challenging them.’”
• appropriate to reject lay witness testimony where 27 it is inconsistent with medical evidence
• “In place of punishment, Chapter 111B provides for the treatment and rehabilitation of alcoholics and evidences a concern for the health and safety of persons incapacitated by the effects of alcohol”
• “Because Chapter 111B did not authorize officers to detain Veiga for the manner in which he expressed himself, a detention for that reason would amount to an unlawful seizure under the Fourth Amendment and Veiga could therefore establish a Section 1983 violation.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).