Search for: "United States v. Monell" Results 1 - 20 of 65
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
19 Oct 2020, 8:43 am by Brett Raffish
§ 1983, provides: Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State ... subjects ... any citizen of the United States ... to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law[.] [read post]
23 Sep 2009, 4:50 pm
This has been a rule of law since at least the 1992 United States Supreme Court case of Monell v. [read post]
3 Mar 2010, 2:39 am
Almost three years later, McGovern sued the City in the United States District Court alleging race discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. [read post]
5 Feb 2009, 4:00 am
Almost three years later, McGovern sued the City in the United States District Court alleging race discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. [read post]
18 May 2021, 11:13 am by Mark C. Niles
Seventeen years after Monroe, the Supreme Court took a second swing at the issue of municipal liability under Section 1983 in Monell v. [read post]
10 Oct 2014, 3:00 am by Michael Lumer
Ultimately, the detectives were convicted in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York of various crimes, and their conviction was affirmed in 2008.The actions were consolidated and assigned to the Hon. [read post]
29 Sep 2010, 11:49 am by Wendy McGuire Coats
Jeff Premo, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary, Petitioner  v. [read post]
27 Oct 2020, 4:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
" Finding that the Plaintiff did not show the existence of a policy or custom of imposing unconstitutional restrictions on access to District property and noting that the Superintendent had restricted access to school property on only four other occasions in the more than ten years he served as Superintendent, and there is no evidence that these other restrictions were not reasonable responses to legitimate safety concerns, the Circuit Court held that the district court properly granted… [read post]
27 Oct 2020, 4:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
" Finding that the Plaintiff did not show the existence of a policy or custom of imposing unconstitutional restrictions on access to District property and noting that the Superintendent had restricted access to school property on only four other occasions in the more than ten years he served as Superintendent, and there is no evidence that these other restrictions were not reasonable responses to legitimate safety concerns, the Circuit Court held that the district court properly granted… [read post]