Supreme Court Report

Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

Casondra Pollreis, on Behalf of Herself and Her Minor Children, W. Y. and S. Y. v. Lamont Marzolf, et al.

Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, No. 21-3267 · judgment April 27, 2023


Certiorari denied · May 28, 2024
Pre-decision estimate: 2% cert probability

Before the decision, well below the 4.1% base rate, with no standout signals pointing toward a grant.

Question presented

In Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007), this Court recognized a narrow exception to the longstanding rule that disputed facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party at summary judgment. Relying on dashcam video that captured the relevant events in their entirety, this Court explained that where a party’s “version of events is so utterly discredited by the record that no reasonable jury could have believed him,” courts at summary judgment should “view[ ] the facts in the light depicted by the videotape.” Id. at 380–381. In this case, the court below applied Scott to inconclusive dashcam footage that captured only part of the events in dispute, holding that in light of the footage, “[t]he evidence * * * need not be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” App. 10a. The question presented—which Petitioner contends is appropriate for resolution either on the merits or on summary reversal—is: After Scott v. Harris, is a court at summary judgment still obligated to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party where record video does not conclusively and comprehensively capture the underlying events in dispute?

Counsel of record

For petitioner
Keith William Neely
lnstitute for Justice

For respondent
Gabrielle Denise Gibson
Arkansas Municipal League

Case

Conference history
Distributed for 2 conferences

Amicus briefs
1 cert-stage

Linked docket
23A310

Proceedings

  1. May 28 2024
    Petition DENIED.
  2. May 07 2024
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/23/2024.
  3. May 03 2024
    Reply of petitioner Casondra Pollreis filed. (Distributed)
  4. Apr 17 2024
    Brief of respondents Lamont Marzolf, et al. in opposition filed.
  5. Mar 01 2024
    Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including April 22, 2024.
  6. Feb 22 2024
    Motion to extend the time to file a response from March 7, 2024 to April 22, 2024, submitted to The Clerk.
  7. Feb 06 2024
    Response Requested. (Due March 7, 2024)
  8. Jan 24 2024
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/16/2024.
  9. Dec 14 2023
    Brief amicus curiae of Law Enforcement Action Partnership filed.
  10. Dec 07 2023
    Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due January 8, 2024)
  11. Oct 10 2023
    Application (23A310) granted by Justice Kavanaugh extending the time to file until December 7, 2023.
  12. Oct 05 2023
    Application (23A310) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from October 22, 2023 to December 7, 2023, submitted to Justice Kavanaugh.