Commonsense and Convoluted: Revisiting Scott v. Harris and Its Effect on Summary Judgment

Authors

• Zachary P. Novak

Abstract

The traditional summary judgment standard across state and federal courts has long been that facts are viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmovant; this has developed as both a baseline measure to test whether the claims are even fit for a trial, but also as a measure of fairness – it is the movant who wants to dispose of the case before trial, so this standard gives the nonmovant a more level playing field. However, the Supreme Court decision of Scott v. Harris carved out a unique exception to this standard: when there is video evidence that so clearly contradicts the alleged facts put forth by the nonmovant that no reasonable jury could find for them, the court is permitted to view the facts in the light most favorable to the movant. In many respects, this is a sensible exception to the standard and has been applied narrowly across federal courts; however, many courts still struggle to keep the exception narrow, and have applied the exception in situations where the quality of the video evidence is much more dubious. Rather than overrule its existing precedent, the best way forward for the Supreme Court to maintain the exception while preventing further misapplication of it would be to clarify it as permitting its use only when video evidence is clear and complete, rather than partial and unclear.

Recommended Citation

Zachary P. Novak, Commonsense and Convoluted: Revisiting Scott v. Harris and Its Effect on Summary Judgment, 75 Cath. U. L. Rev. 579 (2025).
Available at: https://scholarship.law.edu/lawreview/vol75/iss3/9