Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), is an opinion given by the United States Supreme Court in which the Court overruled Monroe v. Pape by holding that a local government is a "person" subject to suit under Section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code: Civil action for deprivation of rights. [1]
Pape, 365 U.S. 167 (1961), was a United States Supreme Court case that considered the application of federal civil rights law to constitutional violations by city employees. The case was significant because it held that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , a statutory provision from 1871, could be used to sue state officers who violated a plaintiff's ...
Title 42 of the United States Code is the United States Code dealing with public health, social welfare, and civil rights. Parts of Title 42 which formerly related to the US space program have been transferred to Title 51 .
Section 1 of the Act, amended and codified at 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and commonly known as "Section 1983", allows individuals to sue state or local government officials, including law enforcement officers, for violations of their constitutional rights.
Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court first introduced the justification for qualified immunity for police officers from being sued for civil rights violations under Section 1983, by arguing that "[a] policeman's lot is not so unhappy that he must choose between being charged with dereliction of duty if he does not arrest when he had ...
He then filed suit in Tribal Court against the wardens and the State of Nevada for alleging trespass, abuse of process, and violation of constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Tribal Court ruled that it had jurisdiction over the tribal tort and federal civil rights claims and the Tribal Appellate court affirmed.
Biden’s plan to replace Title 42. Thursday 11 May 2023 16:20, ariana.baio. Title 42 has been used as a temporary solution to the US’s border crisis for the last three years but as it comes to ...
Abrams sought injunctive relief under the Telecommunications Act and money damages and attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 [1] and 42 U.S.C. § 1988. [3] The district court ordered the city to grant Abram's application for a conditional use permit, but refused the request for money damages and attorney's fees.