Joseph Rossi v. City of Chicago

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that there is no constitutional right to have police investigate a case
• explaining that “a municipality can be held liable under § 1983” if there is “an express policy that would cause a constitutional deprivation if enforced”
• noting that a victim of a crime “does not have a constitutional right to have the police investigate his case”
• holding that the plaintiff “does not have a constitutional right to have the police investigate his case at all, still less to do so to his level of satisfaction” and “mere inactivity by police does not give rise to a 2 constitutional claim”
• noting that an individual “does not have a constitutional right to have the police investigate his case at all, still less to do so to his level of satisfaction.”
• affirming the district court’s decision that a police lieutenant’s general deposition testimony, which did not address quantity or frequency of the alleged widespread practice, “served more as a passing comment than evidence demonstrating a widespread practice.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).