WELCOME

Welcome to the premiere issue of Johnson & Bell's Municipal Law 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 to info@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 here.

Contact us
We hope you find Municipal Law Alert  both 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.

To read the complete article, click here.

LEGAL ALERTS

Municipal exposure in the
context of police misconduct claims
By Eydie R. Glassman

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 here.

Appellate court: No duty to warn of sidewalk defects
By Eric W. Moch

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 here.

Justifying extraordinary circumstances
for prolonged detention of arrestees
By Brian P. Gainer

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.

To read the complete article, click here.