In re Lasnik

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that, “[a]s a general rule, ‘an amended pleading ordinarily supersedes the original and renders it of no legal effect’”
• holding that “a section 1983 failure-to-train claim cannot be maintained against a governmental employer in a case where there is no underlying constitutional violation by the employee”
• concluding that because there is no alleged “constitutional violation on the part of any law enforcement officer, the district court properly dismissed the failure-to-train claims asserted against the governmental employers”
• stating that a claim of failure to protect from harm \is no different in any meaningful respect from the indifferent-to-medical-needs claim\
• concluding that the alleged conduct of the individual defendants “does not amount to a constitutional violation” and “the absence of any viable constitutional claim against the individual defendants prevent[s] the claims from being asserted against the governmental employers”
• holding “[A]n amended pleading ordinarily supersedes the original and renders it of no legal effect.” (citation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).