Campbell v. Anderson County

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a plaintiff whose alleged injuries arose in the context of her civil rights claims could not avoid GTLA immunity merely by “couching” her claim in terms of negligence
• holding that a plaintiff whose alleged injuries arose in the context of her civil rights claims could not avoid GTLA immunity merely by “couching” her claim in terms of negligence
• holding that a plaintiff whose alleged injuries arose in the context of her civil rights claims could not avoid TGTLA immunity merely by “couching” her claim in terms of negligence
• finding that the County was immune from the state law claims under the TGTLA because the claims were predicated on intentional tortious conduct involving the violation of her civil rights under Section 1983
• rejecting as a “viable legal theory” the argument that “the plainly obvious result of [a municipality’s] lack of supervision” of one of its deputy sheriffs “would be a sexual assault”
• “[N]o specific training [i]s necessary to inform officers not to rape or sexually assault women in their custody.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).