Welcome
to the premiere issue of Johnson & Bell's MunicipalLaw Alert,
a periodic electronic newsletter focusing on recent
developments and trends in law affecting local
villages, townships, cities school districts, and other
municipal corporations. You will also find it to be a valuable
resource to inform you of recent court rulings and hot topic
issues before federal and state legislatures.
In this issue With this issue of Municipal
Law Alert we review municipal exposure in the
context of police misconduct claims; the Appellate Court's
duty to warn of sidewalk defects; and the justification of
extraordinary circumstances for prolonged detention of
arrestees.
Municipal Law Alert is
provided complimentary to clients and friends of the
firm.We would be
pleased to keep you on our mailing list unless you wish to be
removed.If so,
or if you would prefer to receive the print version, please
respond toinfo@johnsonandbell.com.
Newsletters We also publish
periodic newsletters on business litigation, employment law, healthcare law,
product liability, and
insurance coverage issues. And, our firm e-newsletter InSight affords you an
opportunity to learn a bit more about the firm, our attorneys,
and the industries to which we offer legal counsel. If
you do not already receive one of these publications but wish
to do so, please click .
Contact us We hope you
find Municipal Law Alertboth useful and informative. Please e-mail us
at info@johnsonandbell.com
with any comments you might have.
NEWS
OF NOTE
About
Johnson & Bell's Municipal Liability Group
The
law firm of Johnson & Bell, Ltd. welcomes you to the
premiere issue of Municipal Law Alert written by attorneys
within our Municipal Liability Group. The group has
extensive experience defending local villages, townships,
cities, school districts, and other municipal corporations in
various state and federal litigation arising out of general
tort and federal civil rights claims, including police
misconduct cases, employment discrimination, pension and
disability disputes, political discharge and retaliation
claims, First Amendment and sexually oriented business
licensing issues, environmental claims, and zoning and land
use disputes.
Municipal
exposure in the
context of police misconduct claims By
According
to the holding of Monell v. New York Department of Social
Services, a municipality cannot be held vicariously liable
for the acts of its employees for civil rights violations.
Pursuant to the holding, § 1983 liability can only be imposed
on a government or municipal entity that, under the color of
some official policy, "causes" an employee to
violate another’s constitutional rights. In other words, a
municipal policy, regulation or ordinance must be the actual
source of the discrimination and must be causally related to
the violation of another’s constitutional rights.
To read the complete article,
click .
Appellate
court: No duty to warn of sidewalk defects By
Even the most
attentive municipalities can allow portions of their public
sidewalks to fall into disrepair. With all the varied public
needs that absorb the ever-thinning resources of many
municipal public works departments, inspection and repair of
sidewalk defects is often far down on the list of a city’s
priorities. Occasionally, those defects can become quite large
due to inattention, and progressively likelier to play a
causal role in the personal injury claims of pedestrians who
stumble upon them. Municipalities have long appealed to common
sense in attempting to avoid liability in sidewalk defect
claims, but size matters to the courts. When asked to dismiss
personal injury claims premised upon large sidewalk defects,
courts can exhibit a hesitation that stands in direct
proportion to the size of the defect at issue.
To read the complete article,
click .
Justifying
extraordinary circumstances
for prolonged detention of arrestees By
The sufficiency of the procedural safeguards that are in place
to protect those that are taken into custody pursuant to a
warrantless arrest is constantly under debate in courts
throughout the country. A great deal of the legal wrangling
in this area has centered on the manner in which the U.S. Supreme
Court’s ruling in the case of Gerstein v. Pugh,
should be interpreted and applied. In Gerstein, the
court ruled, "the Fourth Amendment requires a judicial
determination of probable cause as a prerequisite to extended
restraint on liberty following arrest." The court
indicated that this hearing must occur promptly, but left the
logistical determinations, exactly how long between arrest and
hearing, to the states. Different appellate circuits
throughout the county interpreted the ruling in Gerstein in
different ways.
According
to the holding of Monell v. New York Department of Social
Services, a municipality cannot be held vicariously liable
for the acts of its employees for civil rights violations.
Pursuant to the holding, § 1983 liability can only be imposed
on a government or municipal entity that, under the color of
some official policy, "causes" an employee to
violate another’s constitutional rights. In other words, a
municipal policy, regulation or ordinance must be the actual
source of the discrimination and must be causally related to
the violation of another’s constitutional rights. 
Even the most
attentive municipalities can allow portions of their public
sidewalks to fall into disrepair. With all the varied public
needs that absorb the ever-thinning resources of many
municipal public works departments, inspection and repair of
sidewalk defects is often far down on the list of a city’s
priorities. Occasionally, those defects can become quite large
due to inattention, and progressively likelier to play a
causal role in the personal injury claims of pedestrians who
stumble upon them. Municipalities have long appealed to common
sense in attempting to avoid liability in sidewalk defect
claims, but size matters to the courts. When asked to dismiss
personal injury claims premised upon large sidewalk defects,
courts can exhibit a hesitation that stands in direct
proportion to the size of the defect at issue.
The sufficiency of the procedural safeguards that are in place
to protect those that are taken into custody pursuant to a
warrantless arrest is constantly under debate in courts
throughout the country. A great deal of the legal wrangling
in this area has centered on the manner in which the U.S. Supreme
Court’s ruling in the case of Gerstein v. Pugh,
should be interpreted and applied. In Gerstein, the
court ruled, "the Fourth Amendment requires a judicial
determination of probable cause as a prerequisite to extended
restraint on liberty following arrest." The court
indicated that this hearing must occur promptly, but left the
logistical determinations, exactly how long between arrest and
hearing, to the states. Different appellate circuits
throughout the county interpreted the ruling in Gerstein in
different ways.