Waldorf v. Shuta

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that “it is logical to assume that continued official tolerance of repeated misconduct facilitates similar unlawful actions in the future.”
• stating that a plaintiff must allege a “plausible nexus” or “affirmative” link between the constitutional violation and the municipality’s actions
• stating that a plaintiff “must show that an official who has the power to make policy is responsible for either the affirmative proclamation of a policy or acquiescence in a well-settled custom”
• clarifying that plaintiffs need not allege injuries were direct result of formal policy
• explaining that in both methods to obtain liability under Monell, “a plaintiff must show that an official who has the power to make policy is responsible for either the affirmative proclamation of a policy or acquiescence in a well-settled custom”
• explaining that in both methods to obtain liability under Monell, “a plaintiff must show that an official who has the power to make policy is responsible for either the affirmative proclamation of a policy or acquiescence in a well-settled custom”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).