Citation network
Collins Vs. Harker Heights
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Nov 05, 1991
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
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Collins v. HarkerSearch
-
Heights - 503 U.S. 115 (1991) October Term, 1991 Syllabus Collins V. CitySearch
-
is sufficient to hold the city responsible if the complaint has also alleged a constitutional violation. See Canton v. HarrisSearch
-
to a fairly typical tort claim under state law, which is not supplanted by the Due Process Clause, see, e. g., Daniels v. WilliamsSearch
-
U. S. 327 , 332-333, particularly in the area of public employment, see, e. g., Bishop v. WoodSearch
-
F. 2d, at 286-287. 119 The contrary decision in Ruge v. BellevueSearch
-
violate federal law, it does not provide a remedy for abuses that do not violate federal law, see, e. g., Martinez v. CaliforniaSearch
-
DeShaney v. WinnebagoSearch
-
city had given an employee a particularly dangerous assignment in retaliation for a political speech, cf. St. Louis v. PraprotnikSearch
-
U. S. 112 (1988), or because of his or her gender, cf. Mo nell v. NewSearch
-
by a constitutional violation, and (2) if so, whether the city is responsible for that violation. See Oklahoma City v. TuttleSearch
-
or proved and focused its attention on the separate issue of municipal liability. Thus, for example, in Oklahoma City v. TuttleSearch
-
conduct of a single officer without any policymaking authority did not establish municipal policy. And in St. Louis v. PraprotnikSearch
-
that decisions by subordinate employees did not necessarily reflect official policy. On the other hand, in Pembaur v. CincinnatiSearch
-
that the city itself is the wrongdoer. Because petitioner in this case relies so heavily on our reasoning in Canton v. HarrisSearch
-
In Monell v. NewSearch
-
Springfield v. KibbeSearch
-
Canton v. HarrisSearch
-
has been used in other contexts to define the threshold for finding a violation of the Eighth Amendment, see Estelle v. GambleSearch
-
for responsible decisionmaking in this unchartered area are scarce and open-ended. Regents of Univ. of Mich. v. EwingSearch
-
of federal judges. Cf. Rochin v. CaliforniaSearch
-
De Shaney v. WinnebagoSearch
-
County Dept. of Social Services, 489 U. S., at 196 (quoting Davidson v. CannonSearch
-
that apart from the protection against cruel and unusual punishment provided by the Eighth Amendment, cf. Hutto v. FinneySearch
-
own force requires that conditions of confinement satisfy certain minimal standards for pretrial detainees, see Bell v. WolfishSearch
-
U. S. 520 , 535, n. 16, 545 (1979), for persons in mental institutions, Youngberg v. RomeoSearch
-
U. S. 307 , 315316 (1982), for convicted felons, Turner v. SafleySearch
-
U. S. 78 , 94-99 (1987), and for persons under arrest, see Revere v. MassachusettsSearch
-
deliberate decisions of government officials to deprive a person of life, liberty, or property. E. g., Davidson v. NewSearch
-
was 'intended to secure the individual from the arbitrary exercise of the powers of government,' Hurtado v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Baker v. McCollanSearch
-
than the Federal Constitution, generally governs the substance of the employment relationship. See, e. g., Bishop v. WoodSearch
-
a rational decisionmaking process that takes account of competing social, political, and economic forces. Cf. Walker v. RoweSearch
-
Syllabus Collins V. CitySearch
-
See Canton v. HarrisSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial