Coble v. City of White House, Tenn. Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: An arrestee alleged excessive force. The court held that an audio recording’s silence did not “blatantly contradict” his testimony about screaming in pain, reversing summary judgment for the officer because a genuine factual dispute remained for a jury to decide.
Legal Significance: This case clarifies the summary judgment standard under Scott v. Harris, holding that the absence of sound on an audio recording, unlike a clear video, does not necessarily “blatantly contradict” a non-movant’s testimony, thus preserving a genuine issue of material fact.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Plaintiff Jerry Coble was arrested for DUI. During the arrest, Officer Carney performed a take-down maneuver that resulted in an open fracture of Coble’s right ankle. The central dispute concerns events that occurred after Coble was handcuffed and no longer resisting. These events were not captured on video, but an officer-worn microphone continued to record audio. Coble testified that Officer Carney, aware of the severe and visible injury, forced him to walk several steps on the broken ankle while he screamed in pain, and then dropped him face-first onto the concrete. Officer Carney testified that he took only a few steps with Coble before noticing the injury and immediately sat him down. The district court reviewed the audio recording, which did not contain the sounds of Coble screaming or a body hitting the pavement. Citing Scott v. Harris, the district court found the audio recording “blatantly contradicted” Coble’s testimony, concluded no genuine issue of material fact existed, and granted summary judgment to Officer Carney.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: On a motion for summary judgment, does an audio recording that lacks certain sounds, such as screams or a body falling, “blatantly contradict” a plaintiff’s testimony about those events so as to eliminate any genuine issue of material fact under the standard set forth in Scott v. Harris?
No. The court reversed the grant of summary judgment. An audio recording’s Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
On a motion for summary judgment, does an audio recording that lacks certain sounds, such as screams or a body falling, “blatantly contradict” a plaintiff’s testimony about those events so as to eliminate any genuine issue of material fact under the standard set forth in Scott v. Harris?
Conclusion
This decision refines the application of *Scott v. Harris*, establishing that the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco
Legal Rule
When opposing parties tell two different stories, one of which is blatantly Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui
Legal Analysis
The Sixth Circuit first acknowledged that the principle from *Scott v. Harris*—allowing Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, s
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The rule from Scott v. Harris, allowing a court to disregard