Ashcroft v. Iqbal

Holding that a claim is plausible where a plaintiff's allegations enable the court to draw a "reasonable inference" the defendant is liable

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

Holding that a complaint's allegations should "contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face' "

Farmer v. Brennan

Holding that the deliberate indifference standard utilized for a conditions of confinement claim "is inappropriate . . . when officials stand accused of using excessive physical force."

Scott v. Harris

Holding that it is at least sometimes reasonable for an officer to intentionally collide with a suspect's vehicle during a pursuit

Ashcroft v. Al-Kidd

Holding that, to be clearly established, "existing precedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate"

Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services

Holding that "local government . . . are 'persons'" for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Estelle v. Gamble

Holding that the government has an obligation to provide medical care to incarcerated persons

Board of Comm'rs of Bryan County v. Brown

Holding that a "high degree of predictability may also support an inference of causation—that the municipality's indifference led directly to the very consequence that was so predictable"

Mullenix v. Luna

Holding our court erred in our extrapolation of Garner to new facts

Canton v. Harris

Holding that the city could be held liable for failing to train police officers in determining whether detainees needed medical care because of the likelihood that, absent proper training, the officers would default on their constitutional obligations

Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing

Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

Section 1367 - Supplemental jurisdiction

Holding that in civil actions proceeding in federal court based solely on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the district court "shall not have supplemental jurisdiction" over "claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule . . . 24" or "over claims by persons . . seeking to intervene as plaintiffs under Rule 24," if "exercising supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of section 1332"

Section 25-29-103 - Denver health and hospital authority