Egudu 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.

• assuming that the notice requirement of section 12309 is jurisdictional
• requiring evidence that “the municipality’s employees engaged in a persistent or regular pattern of conduct that gave rise to the alleged constitutional violations” (emphasis added)
• rejecting various pieces of evidence analyzing data from 1996 to 2005, as “that information would not satisfy plaintiff’s burden to show what was customary in the District in 2009”
• rejecting evidence of number of arrests, “without more,” as sufficient to “demonstrate a custom of constitutional violations,” as “the Court will not simply assume that the recorded arrests were improper”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).