Thurairajah v. Cross, No. 19-3530 (8th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Plaintiff filed suit against defendant, asserting claims of First Amendment retaliation and Fourth Amendment unreasonable seizure under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and claims under the Arkansas Civil Rights Act (ACRA), for violating rights secured by Article II, 6, 8, 9, and 15 of the Arkansas Constitution. Plaintiff's claims stems from his arrest by defendant for disorderly conduct after plaintiff yelled an expletive at him from a moving vehicle.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that the district court did not err by dismissing plaintiff's ACRA claim because plaintiff presented no evidence on summary judgment that defendant acted maliciously; the district court did not err in regards to its punitive damages rulings where plaintiff failed to produce sufficient evidence that defendant's conduct warranted the imposition of punitive damages, and plaintiff's trial testimony failed to establish facts meeting the punitive-damages standard; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion for a new trial; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney's fees in this nominal damages case.
Court Description: [Smith, Author, with Kelly and Erickson, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. For the court's earlier opinion in the matter, see Thurairajah v. City of Fort Smith, 925 F.3d 979 (8th Cir. 2019). The district court did not err in dismissing plaintiff's claims under the Arkansas Civil Rights Act as plaintiff presented no evidence on summary judgment that the trooper acted maliciously; on this record, the district court did not err in dismissing plaintiff's federal claim for punitive damages and in not instructing the jury on punitive damages; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion for new trial based on alleged misconduct by opposing counsel during plaintiff's cross-examination; on defendant's cross-appeal of a partial award of attorneys' fees to plaintiff, the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney's fees in this nominal damages ($1.00) case; Judge Kelly, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.