Charles Lee Semple Jr Amanda Lone Suarez Angela Maria Suarez Theresa Semple Kermit Garrison v. The City of Moundsville’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 3 district ·

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A district court may exercise its discretion over state law claims made in the case through supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 when there is a federal basis for jurisdiction. See Shanaghan v. Cahill, 58 F.3d 106, 109 (4th Cir.1995). A district court exercises its discretion by considering factors that include “convenience and fairness to the parties, the existence of any underlying issues of federal policy, comity, or considerations of judicial economy.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 389 F. Supp. 2d 704 - Curry v. Weiford · 89 F. Supp. 2d 766 - Neiswonger v. Hennessey

2. “compels the conclusion that Congress did not intend municipalities to be held liable unless some action pursuant to official municipal policy of some nature caused a constitutional tort. In particular, we conclude that a municipality cannot be held liable solely because it employs a tort-feasor—or, in other words, a municipality cannot be held liable under § 1983 on a respondeat superior theory.... [A] local government may not be sued under § 1983 for an injury inflicted solely by its employees or agents. Instead, it is when execution of a government’s policy or custom, whether made by lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy, inflicts the injury that the government as an entity is responsible under § 1983.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 89 F. Supp. 2d 766 - Neiswonger v. Hennessey

3. “[I]t may happen that in light of the duties assigned to specific officers or employees the need for more or different training is so obvious, and the inadequacy so likely to result in the violation of constitutional rights, that the policymakers of the city can reasonably be said to have been deliberately indifferent to the need. In that event, the failure to provide proper training may fairly be said to represent a policy for which the city is responsible, and for which the city may be held liable if it actually causes injury.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 712 F. Supp. 2d 502 - Woods v. Town of Danville, WV