Hygh v. Jacobs case brief
ANALYSIS:
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
961 F.2d 359, 1992 U.S. App.
CASE SYNOPSIS: Defendant police officer
sought review of a decision from the United States District Court for
the Northern District of New York, which rendered judgment in favor
of plaintiff claimant, in plaintiff's action for damages pursuant to
42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 (1988), based on allegations of false arrest,
excessive use of force, and malicious prosecution. Plaintiff
cross-appealed the award of nominal damages on the malicious
prosecution claim.
FACTS: Plaintiff claimant filed an action for damages against defendants, police officer, municipality, and individuals, pursuant to 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983, after plaintiff was injured during an arrest. The trial court rendered judgment for plaintiff, and defendant officer sought review. On appeal, the court affirmed in part and reversed in part.
FACTS: Plaintiff claimant filed an action for damages against defendants, police officer, municipality, and individuals, pursuant to 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983, after plaintiff was injured during an arrest. The trial court rendered judgment for plaintiff, and defendant officer sought review. On appeal, the court affirmed in part and reversed in part.
ANALYSIS:
The court affirmed the judgment as to
defendant's excessive use of force; although the trial court had
erred in admitting conclusory expert testimony on the issue, the
court held the error was not reversible because the evidence
supported the finding and proper jury instructions were given. The
court vacated the false arrest damage award, finding that the award
was inconsistent with substantial justice because evidence concerning
events following plaintiff's arraignment, testimony by plaintiff
concerning his pain and suffering, and a mugshot of plaintiff
depicting his facial injuries were all inadmissible. The court also
reversed the malicious prosecution judgment because, as a matter of
law, a dismissal in the interest of justice was not a termination in
plaintiff's favor and therefore an essential element of the claim was
not established.
CONCLUSION: The court affirmed the excessive use of force judgment in favor of plaintiff claimant because the trial court's error in admitting conclusory expert testimony was negated by jury instructions and the evidence supported the judgment. The court vacated and remanded plaintiff's false arrest judgment because prejudicial evidence was erroneously admitted, and reversed plaintiff's malicious prosecution claim, because it was legally not proven.
CONCLUSION: The court affirmed the excessive use of force judgment in favor of plaintiff claimant because the trial court's error in admitting conclusory expert testimony was negated by jury instructions and the evidence supported the judgment. The court vacated and remanded plaintiff's false arrest judgment because prejudicial evidence was erroneously admitted, and reversed plaintiff's malicious prosecution claim, because it was legally not proven.
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment