Andrews v. Fowler

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that two instances of misconduct “do not indicate a ‘persistent and widespread’ pattern of misconduct that amounts to a city custom or policy of overlooking police misconduct”
• rejecting plaintiff’s single-incident theory after determining there is no “patently obvious need for the city to specifically train officers not to rape young women”
• requiring evidence that supervisor had notice of inadequate training and supervision procedures and that it was likely to result in a constitutional violation
• “[W]e cannot conclude that there was a patently obvious need for the city to specifically train 29 officers not to rape young women.”
• supervisor may be liable under section 1983 if their “failure to properly supervise and train the offending employee caused a deprivation of constitutional rights.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).