77 Cited authorities

Farmer v. Brennan
511 U.S. 825 (1994) Cited 56,002 times 18 Legal Analyses
Holding that the deliberate indifference standard utilized for a conditions of confinement claim "is inappropriate . . . when officials stand accused of using excessive physical force."
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
509 U.S. 579 (1993) Cited 26,467 times 229 Legal Analyses
Holding that a trial judge must ensure that all admitted expert testimony "is not only relevant, but reliable"
Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services
436 U.S. 658 (1978) Cited 67,656 times 15 Legal Analyses
Holding that "local government ... are 'persons'" for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Estelle v. Gamble
429 U.S. 97 (1976) Cited 55,296 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that the government has an obligation to provide medical care to incarcerated persons
Board of Comm'rs of Bryan County v. Brown
520 U.S. 397 (1997) Cited 12,299 times 2 Legal Analyses
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"
Canton v. Harris
489 U.S. 378 (1989) Cited 16,437 times 2 Legal Analyses
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
Oklahoma City v. Tuttle
471 U.S. 808 (1985) Cited 5,946 times
Holding inadequate training is "far more nebulous, and a good deal further removed from the constitutional violation, than was the policy in Monell"
Grieveson v. Anderson
538 F.3d 763 (7th Cir. 2008) Cited 1,923 times
Holding 4 incidents over about 11 months involving only plaintiff was insufficient to show a widespread practice or custom
Palmer v. Marion County
327 F.3d 588 (7th Cir. 2003) Cited 1,647 times
Holding that claims not argued on appeal are abandoned, and collecting cases
Thomas v. Cook Cty Sheriff's Dept
604 F.3d 293 (7th Cir. 2009) Cited 934 times
Holding that, in addition to proving a widespread custom, the plaintiff must show that the policymakers were "aware of the risk created by the custom or practice and ... failed to take appropriate steps to protect the plaintiff"
Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 Cited 96,118 times 662 Legal Analyses
Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37
Rule 59 - New Trial; Altering or Amending a Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 Cited 43,731 times 67 Legal Analyses
Allowing a party to move to alter or amend a judgment "no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment"
Rule 702 - Testimony by Expert Witnesses
Fed. R. Evid. 702 Cited 26,863 times 261 Legal Analyses
Adopting the Daubert standard
Rule 801 - Definitions That Apply to This Article; Exclusions from Hearsay
Fed. R. Evid. 801 Cited 19,197 times 75 Legal Analyses
Holding that such a statement must merely be made by the party and offered against that party
Rule 30 - Depositions by Oral Examination
Fed. R. Civ. P. 30 Cited 16,250 times 128 Legal Analyses
Upholding a district court's decision not to consider the plaintiff's deposition errata sheets in opposition to a motion for summary judgment when they were untimely
Rule 50 - Judgment as a Matter of Law in a Jury Trial; Related Motion for a New Trial; Conditional Ruling
Fed. R. Civ. P. 50 Cited 13,658 times 63 Legal Analyses
Allowing "renewed motion"
Rule 803 - Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay-Regardless of Whether the Declarant Is Available as a Witness
Fed. R. Evid. 803 Cited 12,722 times 85 Legal Analyses
Recognizing exception to rule against hearsay for records of regularly conducted activities
Rule 701 - Opinion Testimony by Lay Witnesses
Fed. R. Evid. 701 Cited 5,761 times 26 Legal Analyses
Requiring lay opinion testimony to be "rationally based on the witness's perception"
Rule 703 - Bases of an Expert's Opinion Testimony
Fed. R. Evid. 703 Cited 4,757 times 26 Legal Analyses
Explaining that facts or data of a type upon which experts in the field would reasonably rely in forming an opinion need not be admissible in order for the expert's opinion based on the facts and data to be admitted
Rule 106 - Remainder of or Related Statements
Fed. R. Evid. 106 Cited 1,064 times 10 Legal Analyses
Providing that a party is entitled to the admission of any part of a recorded statement which ought, in fairness, be considered contemporaneously with the portion of a statement excerpted by an adverse party

Ortiz, et al v. Chgo, Cty of, et al

77 Cited authorities

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

Holding that a trial judge must ensure that all admitted expert testimony "is not only relevant, but reliable"

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

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

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"

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

Holding inadequate training is "far more nebulous, and a good deal further removed from the constitutional violation, than was the policy in Monell"

Holding 4 incidents over about 11 months involving only plaintiff was insufficient to show a widespread practice or custom

Holding that claims not argued on appeal are abandoned, and collecting cases

Holding that, in addition to proving a widespread custom, the plaintiff must show that the policymakers were "aware of the risk created by the custom or practice and ... failed to take appropriate steps to protect the plaintiff"

Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37

Allowing a party to move to alter or amend a judgment "no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment"

Adopting the Daubert standard

Holding that such a statement must merely be made by the party and offered against that party

Upholding a district court's decision not to consider the plaintiff's deposition errata sheets in opposition to a motion for summary judgment when they were untimely

Allowing "renewed motion"

Recognizing exception to rule against hearsay for records of regularly conducted activities

Requiring lay opinion testimony to be "rationally based on the witness's perception"

Explaining that facts or data of a type upon which experts in the field would reasonably rely in forming an opinion need not be admissible in order for the expert's opinion based on the facts and data to be admitted

Providing that a party is entitled to the admission of any part of a recorded statement which ought, in fairness, be considered contemporaneously with the portion of a statement excerpted by an adverse party