Raishevich v. Foster
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
247 F.3d 337 (2001)

- Written by Josh Lee, JD
Facts
Boris Raishevich (plaintiff) collected photographic transparencies of cannabis plants. A total of 347 transparencies were seized by the police when Raishevich was arrested. All of the transparencies were destroyed by Charles Foster (defendant), a police evidence custodian. Raishevich sued Foster, seeking damages to compensate for the destroyed transparencies. The trial court received conflicting evidence during a bench trial and determined that the value of each transparency was $200. The trial court then noted the lack of evidence related to Raishevich’s past earnings from the transparencies and determined that Raishevich’s peak publication rate would be two times per year. Based on this, the trial court calculated damages over a 30-year period at $12,000. Finally, the trial court decided to double the $12,000, resulting in a total award of $24,000, to account for the fact that Foster’s destruction of the transparencies may have hindered Raishevich’s ability to prove damages with greater specificity. After the trial court’s decision, Foster requested a reduction in damages. The trial court then reduced the damages award by half, back down to $12,000, because it had improperly applied the Bigelow principle twice. Raishevich appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Straub, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.