Byrd v. District of Columbia

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that “a mere awareness in 1999 of a problem and a need for improvement is not, as a matter of law, sufficient to impose municipal liability for an incident that occurred in 2001”
• stating deliberate indifference is “determined objectively, by analyzing whether the municipality knew or should have known of the risk of . . . violations, and yet failed to respond as necessary.”
• stating deliberate indifference is “determined objectively, by analyzing whether the municipality knew or should have known of the risk of . . . violations, and yet failed to respond as necessary”
• “the MOA demonstrates that the District was not indifferent to the problem; on the contrary, it undertook affirmative steps as early as 1999 to remedy the situation”
• “[I[f one were to adopt plaintiff’s approach, a municipality would be ill-advised to evaluate its operational practices or to institute reforms lest its efforts be labeled as a policy or custom of deliberate indifference.”
• “[T]he Court will grant summary judgment as to both defendants on plaintiff’s claims under § 1983[,] . . . and the Court declines to exercise 34 its supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining common-law claims[.]”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).