Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Oklahoma City Vs. Tuttle

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 03, 1985

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

76 entries 4 linked 72 unlinked
Show
  1. Polk County Vs. Dodson US Supreme Court · Dec 14, 1981
  2. Monroe Vs. Pape US Supreme Court · Feb 20, 1961
  3. imbler Vs. Pachtman US Supreme Court · Nov 03, 1975
    Relied / Followed
  4. Harlow Vs. Fitzgerald US Supreme Court · Jun 24, 1982
  5. U.S. 808 (1985) U.S. Supreme Court Oklahoma City v. Tuttle
    Search
  6. U.S. 808 (1985) City of Oklahoma City v. Tuttle
    Search
  7. liability without submitting proof of a single action taken by a municipal policymaker. The requirement of Monell v. New
    Search
  8. would amount to permitting precisely the theory of strict respondeat superior liability rejected in Monell v. New
    Search
  9. opinion with respect to Part III in which THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE WHITE, and JUSTICE O'CONNOR joined. In Monell v. New
    Search
  10. liability seemed to conflict with the decisions of other Courts of Appeals. 469 U.S. 814 (1984). See, e.g., Languirand v. Hayden
    Search
  11. Wellington v. Daniels
    Search
  12. F.2d 932, 936-937 (CA4 1983). But cf. Owens v. Haas
    Search
  13. an issue squarely presented to and decided by the Court of Appeals, and we will proceed to decide it. Cf. On Lee v. United
    Search
  14. it merely provides remedies for deprivations of rights established elsewhere. See Baker v. McCollan
    Search
  15. this Page 471 U. S. 818 amendment, and the reasons given, were the basis for this Court's holding in Monroe v. Pape
    Search
  16. standard. See, e.g., Bennett v. City
    Search
  17. Gilmere v. City
    Search
  18. was premised on the independent evidence, or solely on the inference sanctioned by the instruction. Cf. Stromberg v. California
    Search
  19. violated the constitutional rights of pregnant employees by reason of our decision in Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur
    Search
  20. This case was tried some three weeks prior to our decision in Harlow v. Fitzgerald
    Search
  21. charged on this aspect of the case. The facts of this case are, of course, very similar to the facts of Tennessee v. Garner
    Search
  22. involves only statutory construction, so any error we may commit is subject to reversal by Congress. Cf. Burnet v. Coronado
    Search
  23. turns in recent years. Monell was decided only seven years ago. That decision, of course, overruled Monroe v. Pape's
    Search
  24. is by no means representative of all the contemporary authorities. Both the majority and dissenting opinions in Owen v. City
    Search
  25. the famous case of Thayer v. Boston
    Search
  26. concur in the judgment reached by the Court today, I am unable to join the balance of the plurality opinion. Monell v. New
    Search
  27. based solely on evidence regarding Rotramel's actions on the night of Tuttle's killing. II A Monell v. New
    Search
  28. be broadly available to compensate individuals for violations of constitutional rights, see Owen v. Cty
    Search
  29. the police officer's own unbalanced mental state is the most obvious example. Cf. Brandon v. Holt
    Search
  30. Respondent objects that, in Monell and Owen v. City
    Search
  31. U. S. 661 , n. 2. This policy, of course, violated the interest we recognized in Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur
    Search
  32. See Monell v. New
    Search
  33. Monell, of course, the contours of municipal liability have become substantially clearer. See, e.g., Newport v. Fact
    Search
  34. Owen v. City
    Search
  35. permitted the jury to find the city liable even if the jury did not believe this direct evidence. Cf. Stromberg v. California
    Search
  36. tort law for the purpose of allocating responsibility for the wrongful state action. The central holding in Monroe v. Pape
    Search
  37. as it is used in Part II of the opinion in Monell v. New
    Search
  38. Moreover, in the Court's earlier decision in Monroe v. Pape
    Search
  39. in Monroe v. Pape
    Search
  40. Monell v. New
    Search
  41. It should be noted that the contrary proposition announced in Part III of the Court's opinion in Monroe v. Pape
    Search
  42. that the doctrine of respondeat superior applied to the city. Compare Brief for Petitioners in Monroe v. Pape
    Search
  43. and id. at 25-27, with Brief for Respondents in Monroe v. Pape
    Search
  44. Id. at 436 U. S. 688 (footnotes omitted). See, e.g., 43 U. S. C. & C. R. Co. v. Letson
    Search
  45. See also Cowles v. Mercer
    Search
  46. In 1862, in Limpus v. London
    Search
  47. Allen v. City
    Search
  48. Thayer v. Boston
    Search
  49. tort, will lie against a corporation, though formerly doubted, seems now too well settled to be questioned. Yarborough v. Bank
    Search
  50. Smith v. Birmingham
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial