44 Cited authorities

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
477 U.S. 242 (1986) Cited 236,142 times 38 Legal Analyses
Holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if "the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party"
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett
477 U.S. 317 (1986) Cited 216,254 times 40 Legal Analyses
Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"
Farmer v. Brennan
511 U.S. 825 (1994) Cited 55,521 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."
Estelle v. Gamble
429 U.S. 97 (1976) Cited 54,848 times 6 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 12,173 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"
Wilson v. Seiter
501 U.S. 294 (1991) Cited 14,958 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding violation of Eighth Amendment requires "obduracy and wantonness" rather than "inadvertence or error in good faith"
Canton v. Harris
489 U.S. 378 (1989) Cited 16,315 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
Hope v. Pelzer
536 U.S. 730 (2002) Cited 7,399 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[t]he obvious cruelty inherent" in putting inmates in certain wantonly "degrading and dangerous" situations provides officers "with some notice that their alleged conduct violate" the Eighth Amendment
County of Sacramento v. Lewis
523 U.S. 833 (1998) Cited 8,699 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that "only a purpose to cause harm unrelated to the legitimate object of arrest will satisfy the element of arbitrary conduct shocking to the conscience, necessary for a due process violation"
Whitley v. Albers
475 U.S. 312 (1986) Cited 11,209 times
Holding prison measures that inflict unnecessary and wanton pain on prisoners, when no plausible explanation for such measures is provided, violate Eighth Amendment
Section 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights
42 U.S.C. § 1983 Cited 486,625 times 688 Legal Analyses
Holding liable any state actor who "subjects, or causes [a person] to be subjected" to a constitutional violation
Rule 56 - Summary Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Cited 328,637 times 158 Legal Analyses
Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

Villegas v. Metropolitan Government of Davidson County/Nashville -- Davidson County Sheriff's Office et al

44 Cited authorities

Holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if "the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party"

Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"

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 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 violation of Eighth Amendment requires "obduracy and wantonness" rather than "inadvertence or error in good faith"

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 that "[t]he obvious cruelty inherent" in putting inmates in certain wantonly "degrading and dangerous" situations provides officers "with some notice that their alleged conduct violate" the Eighth Amendment

Holding that "only a purpose to cause harm unrelated to the legitimate object of arrest will satisfy the element of arbitrary conduct shocking to the conscience, necessary for a due process violation"

Holding prison measures that inflict unnecessary and wanton pain on prisoners, when no plausible explanation for such measures is provided, violate Eighth Amendment

Holding liable any state actor who "subjects, or causes [a person] to be subjected" to a constitutional violation

Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit