Citation network
Pembauer Vs. City of Cincinnati
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 25, 1986
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
-
Pembaur v. CitySearch
-
of Cincinnati - 475 U.S. 469 (1986) U.S. Supreme Court Pembaur v. CitySearch
-
of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469 (1986) Pembaur v. CitySearch
-
that is the predicate for municipal liability under Monell v. NewSearch
-
U. S. 492 . JUSTICE BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court, except as to Part II-B. In Monell v. NewSearch
-
under state law to exclude the deputies because the search of his office violated the Fourth Amendment. State v. PembaurSearch
-
Hamilton County Court of Appeals, Nov. 3, 1982). The Ohio Supreme Court reversed and reinstated the conviction. State v. PembaurSearch
-
a search warrant, even to execute an arrest warrant for a third person. We agreed with that proposition in Steagald v. UnitedSearch
-
person to serve a capias, the District Court held that the individual municipal officials were all immune under Harlow v. FitzgeraldSearch
-
Monell v. NewSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
for deprivations of federal rights, overruling a contrary holding in Monroe v. PapeSearch
-
even a single decision by such a body unquestionably constitutes an act of official government policy. See, e.g., Owen v. CitySearch
-
Newport v. FactSearch
-
not, without more, give rise to municipal liability based on an exercise of that discretion. See, e.g., Oklahoma City v. TuttleSearch
-
immune. Tr., Mar. 14-Mar. 17, p. 267. We express no view as to the correctness of this evaluation. Cf. Imbler v. PachtmanSearch
-
McKinley v. CitySearch
-
Berdin v. DugganSearch
-
Van Ooteghem v. GraySearch
-
Quinn v. SyracuseSearch
-
Losch v. BoroughSearch
-
and respondent concedes, that the entry and search of petitioner's clinic violated the Fourth Amendment under Steagald v. UnitedSearch
-
or reasoning of Monell, or by any of our subsequent decisions. As we explained last Term in Oklahoma City v. TuttleSearch
-
accord great deference to the interpretation and application of state law by the courts of appeals. United States v. S.ASearch
-
Brockett v. SpokaneSearch
-
Bishop v. WoodSearch
-
effect or authorize arrests and searches represents the policy of the municipality. It would be different if Steagald v. UnitedSearch
-
The county has not challenged the retroactivity of Steagald v. UnitedSearch
-
s premises in order to serve capiases on two witnesses, they violated petitioner's constitutional rights. Steagald v. UnitedSearch
-
by their agents in the course of their employment. In other words, as I explained in my dissent in Oklahoma City v. TuttleSearch
-
See Oklahoma City v. TuttleSearch
-
actually provides us with an interpretation of the word policy' as it is used in Part II of the opinion in Monell v. NewSearch
-
Circuit in this action, 746 F.2d 337 (1984), and the Ohio Supreme Court in reviewing petitioner's conviction, State v. PembaurSearch
-
ignores the fact that, in a civil context, there is not the societal cost of reversing convictions. Cf. Johnson v. NewSearch
-
Additionally, Payton v. NewSearch
-
of course, been held retroactive in the only context in which the Court has considered the issue. See United States v. JohnsonSearch
-
Several commentators have concluded that the dicta in Monell v. NewSearch
-
Note, Monell v. DepartmentSearch
-
Owen v. CitySearch
-
by JUSTICE WHITE, I agree that the municipal officers here were acting as policymakers within the meaning of Monell v. NewSearch
-
County Prosecutor. I Petitioner's allegation of a constitutional violation rests exclusively on Steagald v. UnitedSearch
-
believe that the person to be arrested was within the home to be Page 475 U. S. 493 searched. United States v. McKinneySearch
-
F.2d 259, 262-263 (1967). That view was shared by at least two other Circuits. See United States v. GaultneySearch
-
United States v. HarperSearch
-
CA10), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 837 (1977). Another Circuit had favored that view in dicta. See United States v. ManleySearch
-
to this action. The leading case explaining the framework of analysis for civil retroactivity is Chevron Oil Co. v. HusonSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial