From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Webster v. City of Houston

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Aug 9, 1984
739 F.2d 993 (5th Cir. 1984)

Summary

noting "[t]he court further erred in allowing the jury to consider whether 'some similarly ranked official' maintained a custom . . . that overrode city policy" and "[t]here was no proof in this record whatsoever that any police officer subordinate to the Chief even possibly could have occupied the role of a city policymaker."

Summary of this case from Derhaar v. Stalbert

Opinion

No. 81-2007.

August 9, 1984.

David L. Crawford, James K. Gardner, Timothy James, Houston, Tex., for defendant-appellant, cross-appellee.

Harvil Hardy, Scott A. Sanes, G.P. Hardy, III, Houston, Tex., K. Michael Mayes, Conroe, Tex., for plaintiffs-appellees, cross-appellants.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

Before CLARK, Chief Judge, BROWN, GOLDBERG, GEE, RUBIN, REAVLEY, RANDALL, TATE, JOHNSON, WILLIAMS, GARWOOD, JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.

Judge Henry A. Politz is recused. Judges W. Eugene Davis and Robert M. Hill were not members of the court when this case was submitted to the court en banc and did not participate in this decision.


ON PETITION FOR EN BANC REHEARING


Plaintiff-Appellee John Russell Webster, et al., has petitioned for rehearing and, thereupon, that we limit the remand to the issue of damages. Upon reconsideration we conclude that the Websters should not be penalized, nor their attorneys or the trial judge faulted, for the jury instructions that lacked the refinements of our formulation to govern the imposition of municipal liability stated in the prior en banc opinion of this case ( 735 F.2d 838, 841) and our recent writing in Bennett v. City of Slidell, 728 F.2d 762 (5th Cir. 1984) (en banc). From the proof made, this jury could have found liability under the instructions given.

For the above reasons, we grant rehearing to the following extent: (1) we affirm the judgment as to liability against the city; (2) we reverse the judgment as to damages for the reasons given by the panel, 689 F.2d 1220, 1228; and (3) costs are adjudged against the City of Houston. In all other respects the petition for rehearing is denied. No further petition will be entertained and the mandate shall issue forth-with.

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.


Summaries of

Webster v. City of Houston

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Aug 9, 1984
739 F.2d 993 (5th Cir. 1984)

noting "[t]he court further erred in allowing the jury to consider whether 'some similarly ranked official' maintained a custom . . . that overrode city policy" and "[t]here was no proof in this record whatsoever that any police officer subordinate to the Chief even possibly could have occupied the role of a city policymaker."

Summary of this case from Derhaar v. Stalbert
Case details for

Webster v. City of Houston

Case Details

Full title:JOHN RUSSELL WEBSTER, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES, CROSS-APPELLANTS, v…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Date published: Aug 9, 1984

Citations

739 F.2d 993 (5th Cir. 1984)

Citing Cases

Fridge v. City of Marksville

First, a plaintiff may point to a policy statement formally adopted by an official policymaker. See Webster…

Zuniga v. Calderon

A policy includes any "statement, ordinance, regulation, or decision that is officially adopted and…