← All Authorities
United States Leading Case strike out and summary judgmentlegal and evidential burden

Scott v Harris

550 U.S. 372 (2007)
JurisdictionUnited States
CourtUS Supreme Court
Year2007
StatusBinding authority

Summary

At summary judgment, a court need not adopt the non-movant's version of facts when video evidence blatantly contradicts that version.

Key Principle

At summary judgment, courts need not adopt the non-movant's version of events when video evidence blatantly contradicts it.

Area of Law

procedure

Related Cases

Getswift Ltd v Webb (2022) 276 CLR 553

High Court of Australia held there is no power to make a common fund order in favour of litigation funders at the interlocutory stage of a class action.

UBS AG v Tyne (2018) 265 CLR 77

Anshun estoppel bars relitigation where it was unreasonable not to raise the issue in earlier proceedings; re-litigation may also constitute abuse of process.

Palmer v Ayres (2017) 259 CLR 478

High Court of Australia held the reflective loss principle (Prudential Assurance rule) does not apply in Australia, permitting shareholders to recover losses independently of the company.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of Scott v Harris and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Scott v Harris