James Dean v. County of Gage , 800 F.3d 945 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                   United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 14-1747
    ___________________________
    James L. Dean; Lois P. White, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Joseph
    White, deceased; Kathleen A. Gonzalez; Thomas W. Winslow; Ada Joann Taylor;
    Debra Sheldon
    llllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant
    v.
    County of Gage, Nebraska, a Nebraska political subdivision; Burdette Searcey,
    Dep., in his official and individual capacities; Wayne R. Price, PhD., in his official
    and individual capacities; Ryan L. Timmerman, Personal Representative of the
    Estate of Jerry O. DeWitt
    lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees
    Richard T. Smith, in his official and individual capacities; Gerald Lamkin, Dep., in
    his official and individual capacities; Gage County Attorney’s Office, a Nebraska
    political subdivision; Gage County Sheriff’s Office, a Nebraska political subdivision
    lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants
    ___________________________
    No. 14-1773
    ___________________________
    James L. Dean; Lois P. White, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Joseph
    White, deceased; Kathleen A. Gonzalez; Thomas W. Winslow; Ada Joann Taylor;
    Debra Sheldon
    lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiffs - Appellees
    v.
    County of Gage, Nebraska, a Nebraska political subdivision
    lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant
    Burdette Searcey, Dep., in his official and individual capacities; Wayne R. Price,
    PhD., in his official and individual capacities; Ryan L. Timmerman, Personal
    Representative of the Estate of Jerry O. DeWitt
    lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellants
    Richard T. Smith, in his official and individual capacities; Gerald Lamkin, Dep., in
    his official and individual capacities; Gage County Attorney’s Office, a Nebraska
    political subdivision; Gage County Sheriff’s Office, a Nebraska political subdivision
    lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants
    ____________
    Appeals from United States District Court
    for the District of Nebraska - Lincoln
    ____________
    Submitted: May 13, 2015
    Filed: August 31, 2015
    ____________
    Before WOLLMAN, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    BENTON, Circuit Judge.
    DNA evidence exonerated Joseph E. White and the five other plaintiffs of rape
    and murder. They sued Gage County and the officers involved in their case. After
    an appeal from summary judgment and a mistrial on remand, the district court
    dismissed plaintiffs’ conspiracy claim and all claims against Gage County. The
    -2-
    district court denied qualified immunity to the officers. Having jurisdiction under 28
    U.S.C. § 1291, this court reverses and remands the dismissal, and affirms the denial
    of qualified immunity.
    I.
    In 1989, Joseph White was convicted for the rape and murder of Helen Wilson.
    The prosecution used testimony and confessions from White’s co-defendants—Ada
    JoAnn Taylor, Thomas W. Winslow, James L. Dean, Kathleen A. Gonzalez, and
    Debra Shelden—all of whom pled guilty to related charges. After DNA testing in
    2008, all convictions were pardoned or overturned. Plaintiffs individually filed 42
    U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 claims against Gage County, sheriff Jerry O. DeWitt (and
    his employees Dr. Wayne R. Price and Burdette Searcey), and county attorney
    Richard T. Smith, alleging Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment due process violations.
    Plaintiffs claimed officers led a reckless investigation, manufactured false evidence,
    conspired to manufacture evidence, and coerced testimony. On two earlier appeals
    from separate summary judgments, this court determined: “evidence is sufficient to
    support Plaintiffs’ claims that their rights to fair criminal proceedings were violated
    as the result of a reckless investigation and Defendants’ manufacturing of false
    evidence”; evidence was sufficient to support a conspiracy claim; evidence was not
    sufficient to support a coercion claim; members of the sheriff’s office were not
    protected by qualified immunity; and the county attorney was protected by absolute
    immunity. Winslow v. Smith, 
    696 F.3d 716
    , 721, 740 (8th Cir. 2012) (reversing
    summary judgment on qualified immunity and reinstating claims against Gage
    County, affirming dismissal of coercion claim, and affirming dismissal of claims
    against county attorney Smith based on absolute prosecutorial immunity); White v.
    Smith, 
    696 F.3d 740
    , 743 (8th Cir. 2012) (affirming denial of qualified immunity,
    holding sufficient evidence existed to support conspiracy claim).
    -3-
    Trial of the consolidated claims began January 6, 2014. At the close of
    plaintiffs’ evidence, the district court granted the Gage County and the officers’ Rule
    50(a)(1) motion, dismissing the conspiracy claim against all parties and all claims
    against Gage County. It denied the officers’ Rule 50(a)(2) motion for qualified
    immunity on the remaining claims of manufacturing evidence and conducting a
    reckless investigation. After three days of jury deliberation with no verdict, the
    district court declared a mistrial and ordered a new trial. One month later, the district
    court certified its Rule 50(a)(1) order under Rule 54(b) to authorize an appeal. It also
    denied the officers’ renewed motion for qualified immunity, which they cross-appeal.
    II.
    The officers claim they are entitled to qualified immunity. “[A] district court’s
    denial of a claim of qualified immunity, to the extent that it turns on an issue of law,
    is an appealable ‘final decision’ within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291
    notwithstanding the absence of a final judgment.” Mitchell v. Forsyth, 
    472 U.S. 511
    ,
    530 (1985).
    This court reviews the district court’s denial of a motion for judgment as a
    matter of law de novo, “using the same standards as the district court.” Luckert v.
    Dodge Cnty., 
    684 F.3d 808
    , 816-17 (8th Cir. 2012) (reviewing denial of Rule 50(b)
    motion for qualified immunity). This court “must draw all reasonable inferences in
    favor of the nonmoving party without making credibility assessments or weighing the
    evidence.” Phillips v. Collings, 
    256 F.3d 843
    , 847 (8th Cir. 2001) (reviewing denial
    of Rule 50(b) motion for qualified immunity).
    To overcome qualified immunity, plaintiffs must demonstrate both that “(1)
    there was a deprivation of a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) the right was
    clearly established at the time of the deprivation.” Parker v. Chard, 
    777 F.3d 977
    ,
    -4-
    980 (8th Cir. 2015). Since this court previously denied qualified immunity for the
    officers as a matter of law, the district court should not consider a Rule 50 motion on
    qualified immunity unless substantially different evidence was produced at trial. See,
    e.g., Kerman v. City of New York, 
    374 F.3d 93
    , 110 (2d Cir. 2004) (applying law-of-
    the-case doctrine in appeal from Rule 50 qualified immunity decision); Oladeinde v.
    City of Birmingham, 
    230 F.3d 1275
    , 1288 (11th Cir. 2000) (same). See generally
    Little Earth of the United Tribes, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Hous. & Urban Dev., 
    807 F.2d 1433
    , 1441 (8th Cir. 1986) (“[W]e will reconsider a previously decided issue
    only if substantially different evidence is subsequently introduced or the decision is
    clearly erroneous and works manifest injustice.”).
    The officers argue that the evidence introduced at trial varies greatly from that
    identified at summary judgment. Resolving the appeal from summary judgment, this
    court previously stated, “Another troubling piece of evidence is that Price offered to
    serve as Dean’s therapist without initially informing Dean of his role as a law
    enforcement officer. Price then told Dean that his polygraph results indicated he was
    repressing memories of the crime.” 
    White, 696 F.3d at 755
    . The officers claim, at
    trial, they showed this was untrue. However, the record the officers cite shows only
    that Price had previously told Dean’s attorney that he was a psychologist for the state
    and his conversations with Dean would not be confidential. Price met with Dean in
    his role as “deputy sheriff.” Price told Dean he was a police psychologist but never
    explained his role to Dean or informed Dean that he was not acting as his
    psychologist. After meeting with Dean several times, Price told Dean that he “failed”
    his polygraph test and recommended therapy. Price recorded his belief that Dean was
    present at the crime scene and was repressing memory. This slight variance does not
    alleviate this court’s previous concerns or overcome the vast amount of troubling
    evidence presented at trial.
    The officers also claim that “the testimony by the attorneys who represented
    Dean, Shelden, and Taylor all indicated that they were never informed by their clients
    -5-
    that the officers were doing anything that would amount to coercion or that they were
    being mistreated by the officers.” This court previously affirmed the dismissal of the
    coercion claim, and the claim is not at issue in this appeal. See 
    Winslow, 696 F.3d at 738
    . The trial testimony does not support the officers’ entitlement to qualified
    immunity. The district court correctly denied the renewed Rule 50 motion for
    qualified immunity.
    III.
    A.
    Before addressing the conspiracy claim and claims against Gage County, this
    court is obligated to independently consider its jurisdiction. Outdoor Cent., Inc. v.
    GreatLodge.com, Inc., 
    643 F.3d 1115
    , 1118 (8th Cir. 2011). It is a general rule that
    only orders that dispose of all claims are final and appealable. Williams v. Cnty. of
    Dakota, Neb., 
    687 F.3d 1064
    , 1067 (8th Cir. 2012).
    “Rule 54(b) creates a well-established exception to this rule by allowing a
    district court to enter a final judgment on some but not all of the claims in a lawsuit.”
    
    Id. Rule 54(b)
    states:
    When an action presents more than one claim for relief—whether as a
    claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim—or when multiple
    parties are involved, the court may direct entry of a final judgment as to
    one or more, but fewer than all, claims or parties only if the court
    expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay. Otherwise,
    any order or other decision, however designated, that adjudicates fewer
    than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the
    parties does not end the action as to any of the claims or parties and may
    be revised at any time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the
    claims and all the parties’ rights and liabilities.
    -6-
    A district court considering Rule 54(b) certification “must first determine that
    it is dealing with a ‘final judgment’” that disposes of a claim. Curtiss-Wright Corp.
    v. Gen. Elec. Co., 
    446 U.S. 1
    , 7 (1980). Second, “[i]n determining that there is no
    just reason for delay, the district court must consider both the equities of the situation
    and judicial administrative interests, particularly the interest in preventing piecemeal
    appeals.”      
    Williams, 687 F.3d at 1067
    (alteration in original), quoting
    
    Curtiss-Wright, 446 U.S. at 7
    .
    Interlocutory appeals are “generally disfavored” and “only the special case . .
    . warrants an immediate appeal from a partial resolution of the lawsuit.” Clark v.
    Baka, 
    593 F.3d 712
    , 714-15 (8th Cir. 2010) (per curiam). See Hayden v. McDonald,
    
    719 F.2d 266
    , 269 (8th Cir. 1983) (per curiam) (listing relevant factors in reviewing
    Rule 54(b) certifications). This court must “scrutinize the district court’s evaluation
    of such factors as the interrelationship of the claims so as to prevent piecemeal
    appeals in cases which should be reviewed only as single units.” 
    Curtiss-Wright, 446 U.S. at 10
    ; Outdoor 
    Cent., 643 F.3d at 1119
    . Where each claim “requires familiarity
    with the same nucleus of facts and involves analysis of similar legal issues, the claims
    should be resolved in a single appeal.” Outdoor 
    Cent., 643 F.3d at 1119
    ; 
    Hayden, 719 F.2d at 270
    (discouraging certification when claims deal “with essentially one set
    of facts, with which this court would need to refamiliarize itself on subsequent
    appeals”). See generally Spiegel v. Trustees of Tufts Coll., 
    843 F.2d 38
    , 45 (1st Cir.
    1988) (“A similarity of either legal or factual issues (or both) militates strongly
    against invocation of Rule 54(b).” (citing Solomon v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 
    782 F.2d 58
    , 62 (6th Cir. 1986) and Morrison-Knudsen Co. v. Archer, 
    655 F.2d 962
    , 965 (9th
    Cir. 1981))).
    If these judicial concerns are met, this court gives the district court’s weighing
    of equities substantial deference, reviewing the certification for an abuse of
    discretion. 
    Williams, 687 F.3d at 1068
    (holding the district court is “most likely to
    be familiar with the case and with any justifiable reasons for delay”). This court’s
    -7-
    role “is not to reweigh the equities or reassess the facts but to make sure that the
    conclusions derived from those weighings and assessments are juridically sound and
    supported by the record.” 
    Curtiss-Wright, 446 U.S. at 10
    (“The reviewing court
    should disturb the trial court’s assessment of the equities only if it can say that the
    judge’s conclusion was clearly unreasonable.”). See 
    Williams, 687 F.3d at 1067
    (“Certification should be granted only if there exists some danger of hardship or
    injustice through delay which would be alleviated by immediate appeal.”).
    As for the first determination, the district court’s order dismissing the
    conspiracy claim and all claims against Gage County was final.
    As for the second determination, the district court, considering “equities of the
    situation and judicial administrative interests,” ruled it was “preferable” to allow
    plaintiffs to appeal after the mistrial instead of after a second trial because the record
    is “fully developed . . . and the issues are fairly limited in scope,” involving questions
    of law (whether plaintiffs waived their conspiracy claim and whether officers were
    “policy makers”). The district court properly reasoned that an appeal from the
    dismissal of the conspiracy claim was likely, and that an appeal from the county’s
    dismissal was a “near certainty.”
    The mistrial created the special case for an immediate appeal. This litigation
    has already generated three interlocutory appeals, including this one. The district
    court recognized “the large trial record and the complexity and difficulty of this
    case.” Delaying the appeal until the close of another trial will add to this case’s
    complexity by requiring consideration of two separate, fully developed records, and
    may require yet another trial if the appeal were successful.
    The certified issues on appeal are “self-contained” and an “appellate ruling
    will finally resolve the sufficiency” of the claims. See Outdoor 
    Cent., 643 F.3d at 1120
    . Rule 54(b) certification is appropriate.
    -8-
    B.
    This court reviews “de novo the grant or denial of a motion for judgment as a
    matter of law, using the same standards as the trial court.” Shaw Hofstra & Assocs.
    v. Ladco Dev., Inc., 
    673 F.3d 819
    , 825 (8th Cir. 2012). Reviewing the sufficiency
    of the evidence, this court draws “all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving
    party without making credibility assessments or weighing the evidence.” 
    Id. A Rule
    50(a) motion is proper only if “a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient
    evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a)(1); Moran
    v. Clarke, 
    296 F.3d 638
    , 643 (8th Cir. 2002) (“Such a ruling is appropriate only when
    all the evidence points one way and is susceptible of no reasonable inferences
    sustaining the position of the non-moving party.”).
    1.
    Plaintiffs challenge the district court’s dismissal of their conspiracy claim. The
    district court held that plaintiffs “failed to preserve [their conspiracy] claim in the
    final pretrial conference order” and that the evidence at trial was insufficient “to
    prove the essential elements of a conspiracy claim.” After a thorough review of the
    record, this court disagrees.
    True, “[t]he issues identified in the Pretrial Order supersede any issues raised
    in the Complaint and Amended Complaint.” Hartman v. Workman, 
    476 F.3d 633
    ,
    634 n.3 (8th Cir. 2007). However, the district court heard the case on remand, after
    this court held that “a factfinder could determine that White’s conviction was the
    result of a purposeful conspiracy by Defendants to fabricate evidence.” 
    White, 696 F.3d at 757
    . (The other plaintiffs’ conspiracy claims were not at issue in prior
    appeals, although their claims arise from the same facts.) Affirming the denial of
    summary judgment on conspiracy, this court preserved the claim for trial. The district
    court’s initial pretrial order and its reframing of issues on remand are nearly identical.
    -9-
    They both include as a controverted issue whether “Defendants, or any one of them,
    manufactured false evidence against a named Plaintiff.” The district court did not say
    that its reframing of issues excluded the previously pled conspiracy claim. Plaintiffs
    continued to argue the conspiracy issue in trial, proffering evidence (arguing hearsay
    testimony was made in furtherance of a conspiracy) and submitting proposed jury
    instructions on the conspiracy claim. They did not waive their conspiracy claim. The
    district court improperly held that the claim was waived on remand.
    “To prove a civil conspiracy under § 1983, [plaintiffs] must show (1) two or
    more persons; (2) an object to be accomplished; (3) a meeting of the minds on the
    object or course of action to be taken; (4) the commission of one or more unlawful
    overt acts; and (5) damages as the proximate result of the conspiracy.” Livers v.
    Schenck, 
    700 F.3d 340
    , 360-61 (8th Cir. 2012). “To be liable as a conspirator [one]
    must be a voluntary participant in a common venture. . . . It is enough if [Defendants]
    understand the general objectives of the scheme, accept them, and agree, either
    explicitly or implicitly, to do [their] part to further them.” 
    White, 696 F.3d at 757
    ,
    quoting Jones v. City of Chicago, 
    856 F.2d 985
    , 992 (7th Cir.1988) (alterations and
    ellipsis in original).
    The evidence in support of conspiracy, viewed in favor of plaintiffs, is
    substantial. At trial, plaintiffs submitted evidence that defendants: were unable to
    match the blood and semen found at the crime scene; suggested to Dean, Shelden, and
    Gonzalez that they had repressed their memory of the rape and murder; conducted
    polygraphs, hypnosis, and recommended recall therapy to recover these blocked
    memories; conducted unrecorded and unreported interrogations; disregarded
    inconsistencies during interrogations; submitted affidavits without disclosing
    contradictions to evidence at the crime scene; and ignored verifiable alibis. Both
    sheriff DeWitt and county attorney Smith testified that they communicated frequently
    and worked together during investigation up to plaintiffs’ convictions.
    -10-
    Plaintiffs “produced proof of questionable procedures” and “hasty
    condemnation” by officers in charge of policymaking. See 
    Moran, 296 F.3d at 647
    -
    48 (8th Cir. 2002) (reversing grant of Rule 50(a) motion on conspiracy claim, holding
    police department “publicly and financially committed itself to producing a culprit
    for an alleged wrongdoing before any such wrongdoing was actually established”).
    Neither the district court nor the officers point to substantially different evidence
    presented at trial that would alter this court’s previous finding on conspiracy. See
    Little Earth of the United Tribes, 
    Inc., 807 F.2d at 1441
    ; Mosley v. City of
    Northwoods, Mo., 
    415 F.3d 908
    , 911 (8th Cir. 2005) (holding law of the case “does
    not deprive the district court of the ability to reconsider earlier rulings to avoid
    reversal”). There was a sufficient evidentiary basis for a jury to find for plaintiffs on
    their conspiracy claim. This court again concludes that “the facts viewed in the light
    most favorable to White [and plaintiffs] give rise to the reasonable inference that
    Defendants acted in concert with the goal of securing” plaintiffs’ convictions. See
    
    White, 696 F.3d at 757
    . The district court erred in dismissing the conspiracy claim.
    2.
    Plaintiffs challenge the district court’s dismissal of their official-capacity
    claims against Gage County. They argue that sheriff DeWitt and county attorney
    Smith “were the final decisionmakers and sole policymakers for their respective
    elected county offices,” and “their conduct in those specific areas is fairly attributed
    to Gage County.” Because this court previously affirmed for absolute immunity
    county attorney Smith, it need not consider whether the County is liable for his
    actions. See 
    Winslow, 696 F.3d at 739
    .
    “[M]unicipal liability under § 1983 attaches where—and only where—a
    deliberate choice to follow a course of action is made from among various
    alternatives by the official or officials responsible for establishing final policy with
    respect to the subject matter in question.” Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S.
    -11-
    469, 481, 483 (1986) (plurality opinion) (“If the decision to adopt that particular
    course of action is properly made by that government’s authorized decisionmakers,
    it surely represents an act of official government ‘policy’ as that term is commonly
    understood.”); Monell v. Dep’t. of Soc. Servs., 
    436 U.S. 658
    , 690-91 (1978) (holding
    municipality “may be sued for constitutional deprivations visited pursuant to
    governmental ‘custom’ even though such a custom has not received formal approval
    through the body’s official decisionmaking channels”). See also City of St. Louis v.
    Praprotnik, 
    485 U.S. 112
    , 127 (1988) (“If the authorized policymakers approve a
    subordinate’s decision and the basis for it, their ratification would be chargeable to
    the municipality because their decision is final.”); Angarita v. St. Louis Cnty., 
    981 F.2d 1537
    , 1546 (8th Cir. 1992) (“An unconstitutional governmental policy can be
    inferred from a single decision taken by the highest official responsible for setting
    policy in that area of the government’s business.”).
    This court must determine as a matter of law whether sheriff DeWitt was a final
    policymaker for Gage County. See Atkinson v. City of Mountain View, Mo., 
    709 F.3d 1201
    , 1214 (8th Cir. 2013). Two key sources used are “(1) ‘state and local
    positive law’ and (2) state and local ‘custom or usage’ having the force of law.” 
    Id., 709 F.3d
    at 1215, quoting Jett v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 
    491 U.S. 701
    , 737 (1989).
    The district court found DeWitt was not a policymaker for Gage County, because
    under Nebraska law, county sheriffs act pursuant to state-enacted restrictions.
    As to positive law, Nebraska statutes “foster and promote local control of local
    affairs. Highest ranking in this hierarchy of local matters is the supervision of law
    enforcement. The state provides a system of law enforcement and local officers to
    carry out the functions thereof on a day-to-day basis within such system.” Neb. Rev.
    Stat. § 23-2801. County sheriffs have broad authority to make policy about criminal
    investigations and enforcement of Nebraska’s criminal code, which includes
    gathering evidence and conducting interrogations. See § 23-1704.01 (“The sheriff
    may appoint such number of deputies as he or she sees fit for whose acts he or she
    -12-
    will be responsible.”); § 23-1710 (“It shall be the duty of the sheriff by himself or
    deputy to preserve the peace in his county, to ferret out crime, to apprehend and arrest
    all criminals, and insofar as it is within his power, to secure evidence of all crimes
    committed in his county, and present the same to the county attorney and the grand
    jury . . . .”); § 29-401 (empowering deputy sheriffs to “arrest and detain any person
    found violating any law of this state”); § 81-2006 (Nebraska state patrol officers must
    cooperate with local officers). The sheriff is elected by the voters of Gage County.
    § 32-520. The board of commissioners sets salaries for the position before each
    election, but the statutes give them no supervisory power over the sheriff. § 23-1114.
    See McMillian v. Monroe Cnty., 
    520 U.S. 781
    , 791 (1997) (“The county’s payment
    of the sheriff’s salary does not translate into control over him, since the county
    neither has the authority to change his salary nor the discretion to refuse payment
    completely.”). The officers do not identify a statute giving any entity supervisory
    authority over the sheriff, and Nebraska law does not require a sheriff to answer to
    any superior. See Morro v. City of Birmingham, 
    117 F.3d 508
    , 514 (11th Cir. 1997)
    (considering meaningful administrative review in the ability to make policy).
    Positive law provides both positions with decisionmaking authority.
    As to custom and usage, the officers offered testimony that sheriff DeWitt was
    the policymaker for the department without any higher supervision. The officers
    testified that DeWitt was “the one” who made policy and that “he was his own boss.”
    DeWitt, in his course of conduct, gave orders to his employees and decided how to
    run investigations. During the investigation here, when a city police officer indicated
    that they did not “have the right people,” DeWitt dismissed him from the case.
    Evidence at trial supports that sheriff DeWitt created policies for the collection
    of evidence, investigation, and interrogation throughout the process of the case. He
    supervised other officers, and specifically directed, endorsed, and encouraged their
    activities. The district court erred in finding that sheriff DeWitt was not a final
    policymaker for the County and in dismissing all claims against the County. Whether
    -13-
    these policy decisions resulted in a violation of constitutional rights is a question for
    the jury in the second trial.
    *******
    The order dismissing the conspiracy claim and all claims against Gage County
    is reversed, and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with this
    opinion. The order denying qualified immunity is affirmed.
    ______________________________
    -14-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-1747, 14-1773

Citation Numbers: 800 F.3d 945

Judges: Wollman, Smith, Benton

Filed Date: 8/31/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024

Authorities (21)

City of St. Louis v. Praprotnik , 108 S. Ct. 915 ( 1988 )

Jett v. Dallas Independent School District , 109 S. Ct. 2702 ( 1989 )

Shaw Hofstra & Associates v. Ladco Development, Inc. , 673 F.3d 819 ( 2012 )

Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs. , 98 S. Ct. 2018 ( 1978 )

Morro v. City of Birmingham , 117 F.3d 508 ( 1997 )

richard-angarita-edward-kyle-and-thomas-patrick-murphy-v-st-louis , 981 F.2d 1537 ( 1992 )

marshall-l-mosley-dewey-b-rice-anthony-t-huckleberry-stan-l-stanback , 415 F.3d 908 ( 2005 )

McMillian v. Monroe County , 117 S. Ct. 1734 ( 1997 )

Kerman v. City of New York - concurrence , 374 F.3d 93 ( 2004 )

Austin Hayden v. Orison F. McDonald Etc. , 719 F.2d 266 ( 1983 )

Clark v. Baka , 593 F.3d 712 ( 2010 )

Professor Harriet Spiegel v. The Trustees of Tufts College , 843 F.2d 38 ( 1988 )

morrison-knudsen-company-inc-a-delaware-corporation-plaintiff- , 655 F.2d 962 ( 1981 )

valinda-f-oladeinde-patricia-l-fields , 230 F.3d 1275 ( 2000 )

Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. General Electric Co. , 100 S. Ct. 1460 ( 1980 )

George Jones, Cross-Appellant v. City of Chicago, Cross-... , 856 F.2d 985 ( 1988 )

little-earth-of-the-united-tribes-inc-a-minnesota-nonprofit-corporation , 807 F.2d 1433 ( 1986 )

Larry Phillips v. Cathy Collings , 256 F.3d 843 ( 2001 )

duane-l-hartman-dlh-inc-a-nebraska-corporation-doing-business-as , 476 F.3d 633 ( 2007 )

OUTDOOR CENTRAL, INC. v. GreatLodge. Com, Inc. , 643 F.3d 1115 ( 2011 )

View All Authorities »