Kesslerprinter - Scott Case Comment

JUSTICES IN THE JURY BOX : VIDEO EVIDENCE AND S UMMARY JUDGMENT IN SCOTT V. HARRIS, 127 S. Ct. 1769 (2007) Some scholars have expressed concern that judges are en-croaching on the fact-finding role of the jury thurogh the use of 1summary judgment. This concern is more acute in cases that turn on fact-specific inquiries, such as lawsuits hwere the de-2 3fense claims qualified immunity. Last term, inS cott v. Har,ri sthe Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the district and appellate courts, which had denied summary judgmen to a de-4fendant who claimed qualified immunity. In Harris, the plaintiff 1.S ee, e.g, .Arthur R. Miller, The Pretrial Rush to Judgment: Are the “LitigaEtixon- plosion,” “Liability Crisis,” and Efficiency Clsi chEéroding our Day in Court and Jury Trial Commitments?, 78 N.Y. LU. R EV. 982 (2003); Patricia WaldS,u mmary Judgment at Sixty, 76 TEX. L. R EV. 1897, 1917 (1998) (describing summary judgme n“at aspotential juggernaut which, if not carefully monitroed, could threaten the rela-tively small residue of civil trials that remain” ).But see John Bronsteen,A gainst Summary Judgment, 75 EGO . WASH . L. R EV. 522, 525 (2007) (explaining that “detrac-tors have been all but drowned out in a sea of supoprt for” summary judgment) ;Randy J. Kozel & David Rosenberg,S olving the Nuisance-Value Settlement Problem: ...