Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

subpoenaliabilityappealprosecutor
subpoenaliabilityappealprosecutor

Related Cases

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408, 123 S.Ct. 1513, 155 L.Ed.2d 585, 71 USLW 4282, 60 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1349, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 16,805, 03 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2948, 2003 Daily Journal D.A.R. 3783, 16 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 216, 1 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 739
View Case »
Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 501 U.S. 496, 111 S.Ct. 2419, 115 L.Ed.2d 447, 59 USLW 4726, 18 Media L. Rep. 2241
View Case »
LaLonde v. County of Riverside, 204 F.3d 947, 00 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1433, 2000 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2031
View Case »
Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275, 121 S.Ct. 1511, 149 L.Ed.2d 517, 80 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 40,456, 69 USLW 4249, 69 USLW 4250, 01 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3194, 2001 Daily Journal D.A.R. 3941, 14 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 206, 2001 DJCAR 2042
View Case »
Amaral v. Cuppels, 64 Mass.App.Ct. 85, 831 N.E.2d 915
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 106 S.Ct. 1292, 89 L.Ed.2d 452

Facts

Bertold Pembaur, a physician in Cincinnati, was indicted for fraudulently accepting payments from welfare agencies. During the investigation, two of his employees were subpoenaed but failed to appear, leading the county prosecutor to obtain capiases for their detention. When deputies attempted to serve the capiases at Pembaur's clinic, he refused them entry, leading to a forcible entry by police officers. Pembaur was later convicted for obstructing police, which he appealed, claiming violations of his constitutional rights under § 1983.

Bertold Pembaur, a physician in Cincinnati, was indicted for fraudulently accepting payments from welfare agencies. During the investigation, two of his employees were subpoenaed but failed to appear, leading the county prosecutor to obtain capiases for their detention.

Issue

Whether the county could be held liable under § 1983 for the actions of its officials when those actions were taken pursuant to an official policy.

Whether the county could be held liable under § 1983 for the actions of its officials when those actions were taken pursuant to an official policy.

Rule

Municipal liability under § 1983 attaches where a deliberate choice to follow a course of action is made from among various alternatives by the official or officials responsible for establishing final policy with respect to the subject matter in question.

Municipal liability under § 1983 attaches where a deliberate choice to follow a course of action is made from among various alternatives by the official or officials responsible for establishing final policy with respect to the subject matter in question.

Analysis

The Court found that the county prosecutor's decision to order the deputies to forcibly enter Pembaur's clinic constituted an official policy of the county. This decision was made by a municipal policymaker and directly caused the violation of Pembaur's Fourth Amendment rights. The Court emphasized that municipal liability could arise from a single decision made by policymakers under appropriate circumstances, thus reversing the lower court's dismissal of the claim against the county.

The Court found that the county prosecutor's decision to order the deputies to forcibly enter Pembaur's clinic constituted an official policy of the county.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that the county could be held liable under § 1983.

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that the county could be held liable under § 1983.

Who won?

Pembaur prevailed in the Supreme Court, as the Court found that the county could be held liable for the actions of its officials taken under an official policy.

Pembaur prevailed in the Supreme Court, as the Court found that the county could be held liable for the actions of its officials taken under an official policy.

You must be