Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 235 F.3d 845 - Lorenzo Langford

Lorenzo Langford’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

53
cited by 53 later decisions
May 2017
most recently cited

15 district ·

Relationships

Relies on Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · Mitchell v. Forsyth · Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati · City of Oklahoma City v. Tuttle

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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The Supreme Court in Monell ... held that a municipality can be held liable as a person under section 1983 when it unconstitutionally implements or enforces a policy statement, ordinance, regulation, or decision officially adopted and promulgated by the officers of that municipality. By contrast, the Court expressly rejected municipal § 1983 liability based on a respondeat superior theory, finding Congress did not intend municipalities to be held liable unless action pursuant to official municipal policy of some nature caused a constitutional tort.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The Supreme Court in Monell ... held that a municipality can be held liable as a person under [§ ] 1983 when it unconstitutionally implements or enforces a policy statement, ordinance, regulation, or decision officially adopted and promulgated by the officers of that municipality. By contrast, the Court expressly rejected municipal § 1983 liability based on a respondeat superior theory, finding Congress did not intend municipalities to be held liable unless action pursuant to official municipal policy of some nature caused a constitutional tort.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[i]n considering a 12(b)(6) motion, we do not inquire whether the plaintiffs will ultimately prevail, only whether they are entitled to offer evidence to support their claims. Thus, the district court's order granting the defendants' motion to dismiss will be affirmed only if it appears that the plaintiffs could prove no set of facts that would entitle them to relief.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Watson

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.