Carlos A. Gutierrez-Rodriguez v. Desiderio Cartagena and Domingo Alvarez, Carlos A. Gutierrez-Rodriguez v. Pedro N. Soto and Edwin F. Gotay

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an officers’ disciplinary files were not hearsay because they were used to show the supervisors’ responses to complaints against an officer.
• holding that all officers “who participated in the intervention could be deemed to be proximate causes of plaintiff’s injuries” because they were “active participant[s]” in the “event that caused plaintiff’s injuries”
• holding that the immediate supervisor of a police officer was liable for that officer's actions where the totality of the evidence suggested that the supervisor's inaction rose to the level of callous and reckless indifference to the constitutional rights of others
• noting that “there must be ‘an “affirmative link” between the street-level misconduct and the action, or inaction, of supervisory officials’ ”
• explaining that a jury award will not be overturned \merely because the amount of the award is somewhat out of line with other cases of similar nature.\
• holding that there was no error in the court’s proximate liability attached where an “injury was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of a defendant’s acts or failure to act.” Tr. Day 6 at 116:13-19; see Kibbe v. City of Springfield, 777 F.2d 801, 810 (1st Cir. 1985

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).