Mt. Clemens Auto Center, Inc. v. Hyundai Motor America

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that respondeat superior applies to state law claims for assault and battery against a city
• observing that the Second Circuit has not extended the doctrine to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
• explaining that “officers, agents[,] and employees of a single corporate entity are legally incapable of conspiring together” (quoting Hartline v. Gallo, 546 F.3d 95, 99 n.3 (2d Cir. 2008)
• finding allegations that sergeant instructed officer to use a taser on the plaintiff a second time, which plausibly constituted excessive force, provided plausible basis for sergeant’s direct participation
• finding plausible claim that policymakers were deliberately indifferent to the constitutional rights of mentally/emotionally disturbed persons under a single-incident theory
• dismissing Fourth Amendment claim because “facts as alleged by Plaintiff ma[de] clear that the officers’ entrance into the apartment” fell under the emergency aid exception

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).