Stensrud v. Federal Land Bank

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that jury could find that final policymaker deliberately chose to allow subordinate’s constitutional violations to continue
• holding that Monell liability is appropriate if a representative of the municipality “affirmatively approved” of the allegedly unconstitutional conduct”
• holding that city could be held liable where jury could conclude policymaker \affirmatively approved of [subordinate's] alleged ongoing constitutional violations\ after learning of these violations
• holding that the 9 plaintiffs’ allegations that a county official singled them out for unique treatment was 10 insufficient to establish the required practice or custom
• holding that a county could not be liable for a retaliatory prosecution based on a senior prosecutor’s “ratification” because the plaintiff “provided no evidence” the prosecutor had “knowledge of the alleged constitutional violation”
• holding that a 1 approve a subordinate’s decision and the basis for it.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).