Woods v. Lecureux
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
110 F.3d 1215 (1997)
- Written by Serena Lipski, JD
Facts
Margaret Woods (plaintiff) sued several prison officials in connection with the death of her son, Larry Billups, while he was in prison. Woods dismissed most of the officials over time, but not Art Tessmer and John Jabe (the prison officials) (defendants). Woods alleged that the prison officials should be liable for Billups’s death because they were deliberately indifferent to the risks her son faced in prison. To prove her case, Woods proffered the expert testimony of Dr. Mintzes. The court did not allow Dr. Mintzes to use the term deliberately indifferent during his testimony. During his testimony, Dr. Mintzes stated that he was using deliberately indifferent as a legal term, and he began to define it before the judge interrupted his testimony. Following the court’s order granting judgment as a matter of law in favor of the prison officials, Woods appealed, arguing among other things that the trial court erred in refusing to allow Dr. Mintzes to use the term deliberately indifferent.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Moore, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.