People's Bank v. Girod

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding, on a summary judgment motion, that ingestion of a large quantity of drugs and signs of distress such as vomiting, sleeping, slurred speech, and unsteadiness constituted a sufficiently serious danger
• concluding, on a summary judgment motion, that ingestion of a large quantity of drugs and signs of distress such as vomiting, sleeping, slurred speech, and unsteadiness constituted a sufficiently serious danger
• reading the complaint broadly to incorporate a sufficiently stated Monell claim
• Section 1024 unavailable when plaintiff asserting Section 1983 claims against John Does “had the names of [the defendant officers] before the statute of limitations had run” through, among other sources, arrest and prosecution records
• “Therefore, because the Second Circuit has explicitly held that lack of knowledge of a John Doe defendant’s name does not constitute a mistake of identity, the Plaintiff cannot avail himself of Rule 15(c)(1)(C).” (quotations and citations omitted)
• “Plaintiff cannot avail himself of the benefits of § 1024 . . . where [he] had the names of the officers before the statute of limitations expired . . . [but] made no attempt to amend his complaint or serve them.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).