Citation network
Mcmillian Vs. Monroe County
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 18, 1997
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
-
McMillian v. MonroeSearch
-
County - 520 U.S. 781 (1997) October Term, 1996 Syllabus Mcmillian V. MonroeSearch
-
Monell v. NewSearch
-
authority for the local governmental actor concerning the action alleged to have caused the violation at issue. JeU v. DallasSearch
-
is dependent on the definition of the official's functions under relevant state law. Cf. Regents of Univ. of Gal. v. DoeSearch
-
local officials' titles in a blatant effort to shield local governments from liability is foreclosed by St. Louis v. PraprotnikSearch
-
then the county is liable for them. Monell v. NewSearch
-
the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals reversed petitioner's conviction, holding that the State had violated Brady v. MarylandSearch
-
by suppressing statements from Myers that contradicted his trial testimony and other exculpatory evidence. McMillian v. StateSearch
-
McMillian v. JohnsonSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
in the lower courts, with some of petitioner's claims surviving motions for summary judgment. See McMillian v. JohnsonSearch
-
Jett v. DallasSearch
-
St. Louis v. PraprotnikSearch
-
U. S. 159 , 165 (1985) (quoting Monell v. NewSearch
-
Pembaur v. CincinnatiSearch
-
be dependent on the definition of the official's functions under relevant state law. Cf. Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. DoeSearch
-
based in Alabama. In addition, this is the second Eleventh Circuit panel to have reached this conclusion. See Swint v. WadleySearch
-
Alexander v. StateSearch
-
Garber v. CazalasSearch
-
Parker v. AmersonSearch
-
Court has held that a sheriff is absolutely immune from all suits for damages based on his official acts. Parker v. AmersonSearch
-
So. 2d 442, 446 (Ala. 1987). See also King v. ColbertSearch
-
Boshell v. WalkerSearch
-
Hereford v. JeffersonSearch
-
of the counties-which in every Alabama county is the county commission, see Calvert v. CullmanSearch
-
to share this information not with the county commission, but with the district attorney (a state official, see Hooks v. HittSearch
-
See Etowah County Comm'n v. HayesSearch
-
that declare sheriffs to be county officers in one State, and not in another.10 10 Compare, e. g., Strickler v. WatersSearch
-
Thompson v. DukeSearch
-
jail employees, because county board of commissioners has no authority to set policy in this area), with Dotson v. ChesterSearch
-
Turner v. UptonSearch
-
Crowder v. SinyardSearch
-
See Monell v. NewSearch
-
to the Eleventh Circuit's construction of Alabama law. See ante, at 786. But cf. Salve Regina College v. RussellSearch
-
district courts' state-law determinations). Deference, however, does not supplant careful review, see St. Louis v. Praprot-Search
-
purposes. Cf. Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. DoeSearch
-
see also Geneva Cty. Comm'n v. TiceSearch
-
of a single official who more completely represents the exercise of significant power within a county. See Pembaur v. CincinnatiSearch
-
see also Parker v. WilliamsSearch
-
Lucas v. O'LoughlinSearch
-
Weber v. DellSearch
-
Marchese v. LucasSearch
-
Blackburn v. SnowSearch
-
CA1 1985) (Massachusetts sheriff acts for county in setting county jail strip search policy). But see Soderbeck v. BurnettSearch
-
Syllabus Mcmillian V. MonroeSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial