Legal Opinion

Carroll v. Lancaster Cnty.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Decided March 14, 2018No. CIVIL ACTION NO. 16–1580PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The Third Circuit applies a three-part test to determine whether the deliberate indifference requirement has been met:

*505it must be shown that (1) municipal policymakers know that employees will confront a particular situation; (2) the situation involves a difficult choice or a history of employees mishandling; and (3) the wrong choice by an employee will frequently cause deprivation of constitutional rights.

Id. (citing Walker v. City of New York, 974 F.2d 293, 297-298 (2d Cir. 1992) ).

In other words, to state a claim, plaintiff must show that the municipality's "failure to provide specific…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs.Supreme Court of the United States · 1978
  2. Harlow v. FitzgeraldSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  3. Pearson v. CallahanSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
  4. Anderson v. CreightonSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  5. Board of the County Commissioners of Bryan County v. BrownSupreme Court of the United States · 1997

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. CARTEE-HARING v. CENTRAL BUCKS SCHOOL DISTRICTDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2024
  2. Dejesus v. The State of DelawareDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 2021
  3. Eleanor Denman, both individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Ulysses Denman v. MHM Correctional Services, LLC d/b/a MHM Solutions, et al.District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2026
  4. GRANT v. GREAT ARROW BUILDERS, LLCDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 2023
  5. HARBAUGH v. BUCKS COUNTYDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2022

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API