green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 4×
11.5 score
“there is no place for a cause of action against a municipality directly under the 14th amendment, because the plaintiff may proceed ... under 1983”
Treatment trajectory · 1981 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1981
2003
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited "but see"
Grandstaff v. City of Borger
But see Turpin v. Mailet, 619 F.2d 196, 201-02 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1016 , 101 S.Ct. 577 , 66 L.Ed.2d 475 (1980); Reeves v. City of Jackson, 608 F.2d 644, 652-53 (5th Cir.1979); Owens v. Haas, 601 F.2d 1242, 1246-47 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 980 , 100 S.Ct. 483 , 62 L.Ed.2d 407 (1979). (b) The city policy/custom of dangerous recklessness: If there is a reckless disregard for human life and safety prevalent among the city’s police officers which threatens the life and security of those whom they encounter, and if that recklessness is attributable to the instruction or exa…
discussed
Cited "but see"
ca5 1985
But see Turpin v. Mailet, 619 F.2d 196, 201-02 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1016 , 101 S.Ct. 577 , 66 L.Ed.2d 475 (1980); Reeves v. City of Jackson, 608 F.2d 644, 652-53 (5th Cir.1979); Owens v. Haas, 601 F.2d 1242, 1246-47 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 980 , 100 S.Ct. 483 , 62 L.Ed.2d 407 (1979). 29 (b) The city policy/custom of dangerous recklessness: If there is a reckless disregard for human life and safety prevalent among the city's police officers which threatens the life and security of those whom they encounter, and if that recklessness is attributable to the instruction or ex…
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Kathleen Stoneking v. Bradford Area School District
the issue of authorization, approval or encouragement is generally one of fact, not law.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Stoneking v. Bradford Area School District
the issue of authorization, approval or encouragement is generally one of fact, not law.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Ravalese v. Town of East Hartford
there is no place for a cause of action against a municipality directly under the 14th amendment, because the plaintiff may proceed ... under 1983
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Pryor
The general rule that a prosecutor may not use a defendant's pretrial silence to impeach his or her trial testimony does not apply where, as here, " 'a defendant speaks to the police and omits exculpatory information which he [or she] presents for the first time at trial' " ( People v Harris , 57 AD3d 1523, 1524 [4th Dept 2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 817 [2009]; see People v Smith , 187 AD3d 1652 , 1654 [4th Dept 2020], lv denied 36 NY3d 1054 [2021]; see generally People v Savage , 50 NY2d 673, 680-682 [1980], cert denied 449 US 1016 [1980]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Regan
The Court of Appeals, however, has "recognized a narrow exception to the general rule," which allows a defendant who provides a voluntary statement to law enforcement to be cross-examined, for impeachment purposes, as to his or her omission of exculpatory information at the time that he or she spoke to law enforcement ( People v Chery , 28 NY3d at 144 ; see People v Savage , 50 NY2d 673, 679 [1980], cert denied 449 US 1016 [1980]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Smith
Although as a general rule a prosecutor may not use a defendant's pretrial silence to impeach his or her trial testimony, that general rule is inapplicable where, as here, " 'a defendant speaks to the police and omits exculpatory information which he [or she] presents for the first time at trial' " ( People v Harris , 57 AD3d 1523, 1524 [4th Dept 2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 817 [2009]; see generally People v Savage , 50 NY2d 673, 680-682 [1980], cert denied 449 US 1016 [1980]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Johnson
The prosecutor did not violate defendant's right to silence either by cross-examining him on why he had not mentioned his alleged affair with the babysitter before the trial, including when speaking with police, or by arguing during summation that his failure to do so indicated that the claimed affair was fabricated. "[W]here, as here, a defendant speaks to the police and omits exculpatory information which he [or she] presents for the first time at trial, the defendant may be impeached with the omission" ( People v Prashad , 46 AD3d 844 , 844 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 815 [2008]; see People v…
discussed
Cited "see"
Matusick v. Erie Cnty. Water Auth.
See Turpin v. Mailet, 619 F.2d 196, 200 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1016 (1980) (ʺIndeed, by holding that a 70 municipality can be held liable for its ʹcustomʹ Monell recognized that less than formal municipal conduct can in some instances give rise to municipal liability under section 1983.
discussed
Cited "see"
Matusick v. Erie County Water Authority
See Turpin v. Mailet, 619 F.2d 196, 200 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1016 , 101 S.Ct. 577 , 66 L.Ed.2d 475 (1980) (“Indeed, by holding that a municipality can be held liable for its ‘custom’ Monell recognized that less than formal municipal conduct can in some instances give rise to municipal liability under section 1983.
discussed
Cited "see"
Matusick v. Erie Cnty. Water Auth.
See Turpin v. Mailet, 619 F.2d 196, 200 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1016 (1980) (ʺIndeed, by holding that a municipality can be held liable for its ʹcustomʹ Monell recognized that less than formal municipal conduct can in some instances give rise to municipal liability under section 1983.
discussed
Cited "see"
Matusick v. Erie County Water Authority
See Turpin v. Mailet, 619 F.2d 196, 200 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1016 , 101 S.Ct. 577 , 66 L.Ed.2d 475 (1980) (“Indeed, by holding that a municipality can be held liable for its ‘custom’ Monell recognized that less than formal municipal conduct can in some instances give rise to municipal liability under section 1983.
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Tucker
Moreover, “an individual’s pretrial failure to speak when confronted by law enforcement officials is of extremely limited probative worth” while “the risk of prejudice is substantial” (People v Conyers, 52 NY2d at 458, 459 ; see People v Savage, 50 NY2d 673, 677-678 [1980], cert denied 449 US 1016 [1980]; People v Spinelli, 214 AD2d at 139-140 ; People v Haines, 139 AD2d 591, 592 [1988]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Salsbery
“Although a prosecutor generally may not use the pretrial silence of a defendant to impeach his or her trial testimony [and to comment on that silence on summation] . . . , that general rule does not apply where, as here, ‘a defendant speaks to the police and omits exculpatory information which he [or she] presents for the first time at trial’ ” (People v Harris, 57 AD3d 1523, 1524 [2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 817 [2009]; see generally People v Savage, 50 NY2d 673, 680-682 [1980], cert denied 449 US 1016 [1980]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Harris
Although a prosecutor generally may not use the pretrial silence of a defendant to impeach his or her trial testimony (see People v Conyers, 52 NY2d 454, 457-459 [1981]), that general rule does not apply where, as here, “a defendant speaks to the police and omits exculpatory information which he [or she] presents for the first time at trial” (People v Prashad, 46 AD3d 844 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 815 [2008]; see People v Bruno, 34 AD3d 220 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 878 [2007]; People v Mosby, 239 AD2d 938 [1997], lv denied 90 NY2d 942 [1997]; see generally People v Savage, 50 NY2d 673, 680…
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Litvin
See United States v. Indorato, 628 F.2d 711 (1st Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1016 (1980).
cited
Cited "see"
Fridman v. City of New York
See Turpin v. Mailet, 619 F.2d 196, 201 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1016 , 101 S.Ct. 577 , 66 L.Ed.2d 475 (1980); see also Gibralter v. City of New York, 612 F.Supp. 125, 131 (E.D.N.Y.1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Mosby
"When a defendant voluntarily speaks to the police, neither due process nor the privilege against self-incrimination prohibits cross-examination of the defendant about his failure to inform the police at that time of exculpatory circumstances to which he later testifies at trial” (People v Spinelli, 214 AD2d 135, 140 , lv dismissed 87 NY2d 1025 ; see, People v Savage, 50 NY2d 673, 680 , cert denied 449 US 1016 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Edwards
"If defendant testifie[s] * * * and offer[s] an exculpatory explanation not offered previously, his conduct during police questioning [is] admissible on cross-examination to impeach credibility” (People v Aponte, 180 AD2d 910 ; see, People v Savage, 50 NY2d 673 , cert denied 449 US 1016 ; People v Bishop, 206 AD2d 884 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ.
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Turpin v. Mailet, 619 F.2d 196 (2nd Cir.), cert. denied, *1000 449 U.S. 1016 , 101 S.Ct. 577 , 66 L.Ed.2d 475 (1980); Owens v. Haas, 601 F.2d 1242 (2nd Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 980 , 100 S.Ct. 483 , 62 L.Ed.2d 407 (1979).
discussed
Cited "see"
Pride Communications Ltd. Partnership v. WCKG, Inc.
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Turpin v. Mailet, 619 F.2d 196 (2nd Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1016 , 101 S.Ct. 577 , 66 L.Ed.2d 475 (1980); Owens v. Haas, 601 F.2d 1242 (2nd Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 980 , 100 S.Ct. 483 , 62 L.Ed.2d 407 (1979).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Fodor
See United States v. Ponticelli, 622 F.2d 985, 989 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1016 , 101 S.Ct. 578 , 66 L.Ed.2d 476 (1980); United States v. Abrams, 568 F.2d 411, 419 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 437 U.S. 903 , 98 S.Ct. 3089 , 57 L.Ed.2d 1133 (1978) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Gilbert Fuentes
See United States v. Ponticelli, 622 F.2d 985, 991 (9th Cir.) ("the court must determine if the declarant's state of mind at the time of the declaration is relevant to the declarant's state of mind at the time at issue."), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1016 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Milton Donovan Olson, United States of America v. Bryan D. Olson
See United States v. Price, 623 F.2d 587, 591 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1016 , 101 S.Ct. 577 , 66 L.Ed.2d 475 (1980), overruled on other grounds, United States v. De Bright, 730 F.2d 1255, 1259 (9th Cir.1984) (en banc).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Martin F. Hogan
See United States v. Ponticelli, 622 F.2d 985, 991 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1016 , 101 S.Ct. 578 , 66 L.Ed.2d 476 (1980).
cited
Cited "see"
Estate of Jackson v. City of Rochester
See Turpin v. Mailet, 619 F.2d 196 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1016 , 101 S.Ct. 577 , 66 L.Ed.2d 475 (1980).
cited
Cited "see"
Garmon v. State
See United States v. Ponticelli, 622 F.2d 985 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1016 , 101 S.Ct. 578 , 66 L.Ed.2d 476 (1980); Section 90.803(3)(b), Florida Statutes.
cited
Cited "see"
Josiah Haynesworth and Fred Hancock v. Frank P. Miller, Chief, Law Enforcement Section, Office of the Corporation Counsel, (Two Cases)
See Turpin v. Mailet, 619 F.2d 196, 201 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1016 , 101 S.Ct. 577 , 66 L.Ed.2d 475 (1980). .
cited
Cited "see"
McNair v. McMickens
See Turpin v. Mailet, 619 F.2d 196, 201 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1016 , 101 S.Ct. 577 , 66 L.Ed.2d 475 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
Stengel v. City of Hartford
See Monell v. Department of Social Serv., 436 U.S. 658 , 98 S.Ct. 2018 , 56 L.Ed.2d 611 *574 (1978). “[A] policy or custom may be inferred from acts or omissions of a municipality’s supervisory officials serious enough to amount to gross negligence or deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of the plaintiff.” Villante v. Department of Corrections, 786 F.2d 516, 519 (2d Cir.1986), citing Turpin v. Mailet, 619 F.2d 196, 201-02 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1016 , 101 S.Ct. 577 , 66 L.Ed.2d 475 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
Rowe v. Lewis
See, Turpin v. Mailet, 591 F.2d 426 (2nd Cir.1979), cert. den. 449 U.S. 1016 , 101 S.Ct. 577 , 66 L.Ed.2d 475 ; Harlee v. Hagen, 538 F.Supp. 389 , 391 n. 3 (E.D.N.Y.1982); Crow v. Washington County B. of Prison Insp., et al., 504 F.Supp. 412, 415 (W.D.Pa.1980); Morris v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit, 702 F.2d 1037 , 1042 n. 10 (D.C.C.U.1983).
cited
Cited "see"
David Krulik v. Board of Education of the City of New York
See Turpin v. Mailet, 619 F.2d 196, 203 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1016 , 101 S.Ct. 577 , 66 L.Ed.2d 475 (1980).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Yonkers Board of Education
See Turpin v. Mailet, 591 F.2d 426, 427 (2d Cir.1979) (en banc) (per curium), ce rt. denied, 449 U.S. 1016 , 101 S.Ct. 577 , 66 L.Ed.2d 475 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. David Silverman
(2×)
See United States v. Ponticelli, 622 F.2d 985, 991 (9th Cir.) (to be admissible, "[t]he state of mind declaration must be relevant to some issue in the case"), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1016 , 101 S.Ct. 578 , 66 L.Ed.2d 476 (1980) 2 The origin of the "slight evidence" term can be traced as follows.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Frank G. Prantil
See United States v. Ponticelli, 622 F.2d 985, 989 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1016 , 101 S.Ct. 578 , 66 L.Ed.2d 476 (1980).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Frank G. Prantil
See United States v. Ponticelli, 622 F.2d 985, 989 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1016 , 101 S.Ct. 578 , 66 L.Ed.2d 476 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
Arancibia v. Berry
This basis for imposing liability upon a municipality was specifically rejected by the Supreme Court in Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 , 663 n. 7, 691-95, 98 S.Ct. 2018 , 2022 n. 7, 2036-38, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978); see Turpin v. Mailet, 619 F.2d 196, 199 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1016 , 101 S.Ct. 577 , 66 L.Ed.2d 475 (1980); Dominguez v. Beame, 603 F.2d 337 , 341 (2d Cir.1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 917 , 100 S.Ct. 1850 , 64 L.Ed.2d 271 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
Thurman v. City of Torrington
See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 , 97 S.Ct. 285, 292 , 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976), reh’g denied, 429 U.S. 1066 , 97 S.Ct. 798 , 50 L.Ed.2d 785 (1977) and Turpin v. Mailet, 619 F.2d 196, 201-02 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1016 , 101 S.Ct. 577 , 66 L.Ed.2d 475 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
Inmates of Unit 14 v. Rebideau
See Turpin v. Mailet, 619 F.2d 196, 201 (2d Cir.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1016 , 101 S.Ct. 577 , 66 L.Ed.2d 475 (1980); Owens v. Haas, 601 F.2d 1242, 1246-47 (2d Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 980 , 100 S.Ct. 483 , 62 L.Ed.2d 407 (1979); see also Batista v. Rodriguez, 702 F.2d 393 (2d Cir.1983); Johnson v. Glick, 481 F.2d 1028, 1034 (2d Cir.1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1033 , 94 S.Ct. 462 , 38 L.Ed.2d 324 (1973).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Sun Myung Moon
See United States v. Ponticelli, 622 F.2d 985, 989 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1016 , 101 S.Ct. 578 , 66 L.Ed.2d 476 (1980) (“ ‘the materiality requirement of a perjury indictment may be met by a general statement that the matter was material’ ” (quoting United States v. Davis, 548 F.2d 840, 845 (9th Cir. 1977))); United States v. Hilliard, 436 F.Supp. 66, 71 (S.D.N.Y.1977) (when “the perjury charged ‘as appears upon the face of the indictment’ is ‘within the realm of materiality,’ whether the accused testimony was material to the grand jury’s inquiry is a matter tha…
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Layton
See United States v. Ponticelii, 622 F.2d 985 (9th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1016 , 101 S.Ct. 578 , 66 L.Ed.2d 476 (1980).
cited
Cited "see"
Black, Elwood W., Sr. And Black, Joyce v. Stephens, Wayne and City of Allentown and Gable, Carson
See Turpin v. Mailet, 619 F.2d 196, 202-03 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1016 , 101 S.Ct. 577 , 66 L.Ed.2d 475 (1980).
cited
Cited "see"
Herrera v. Valentine
See Turpin v. Mailet, 619 F.2d 196, 201-202 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1016 , 101 S.Ct. 577 , 66 L.Ed.2d 475 (1980); McClelland v. Facteau, 610 F.2d 693, 695-697 (10th Cir. 1979).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Horton
First, we agree with defendant that the People's use of defendant's pretrial selective silence was improper ( see People v Williams , 25 NY3d 185, 188 [2015]; compare People v Savage , 50 NY2d 673, 677-678 [1980], cert denied 449 US 1016 [1980]; People v Rothschild , 35 NY2d 355, 360-361 [1974]).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Dizak
There is no evidence in the record that the witness was specifically asked during the subject interaction with authorities whether he agreed to commit the murder, nor was it unnatural for that witness, who was incarcerated at the time, to have omitted that detail from his statements to the authorities (see People v Broadhead, 36 AD3d 423, 424 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 919 [2007]; People v Byrd, 284 AD2d 201 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 679 [2001]; see also People v Savage, 50 NY2d 673, 679 [1980], cert denied 449 US 1016 [1980]).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
DIZAK, STUART J., PEOPLE v
There is no evidence in the record that the witness was specifically asked during the subject interaction with authorities whether he agreed to commit the murder, nor was it unnatural for that witness, who was incarcerated at the time, to have omitted that detail from his statements to the authorities (see People v Broadhead, 36 AD3d 423 , -3- 226 KA 10-00616 424, lv denied 8 NY3d 919 ; People v Byrd, 284 AD2d 201 , lv denied 97 NY2d 679 ; see also People v Savage, 50 NY2d 673, 679 , cert denied 449 US 1016 ).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Moore
The witness’s credibility was properly impeached when the prosecutor elicited from this witness that he had not mentioned the earlier event in his statement to the police or to the District Attorney (see People v Bornholdt, 33 NY2d 75 [1973], cert denied 416 US 905 [1974]; see also People v Savage, 50 NY2d 673 [1980], cert denied 449 US 1016 [1980]).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Amato v. City of Saratoga Springs
See Woo v. City of New York, 1996 WL 457337 at *6 (S.D.N.Y.1996). 9 . "[W]ithout evidence that other, prior incidents had been similarly covered-up, no valid causal relationship can be inferred between a cover-up and the underlying constitutional violation.” Pitt v. City of New York, 1984 WL 1323 at *4 (S.D.N.Y.1984); see also Turpin v. Mailet, 619 F.2d 196, 202-03 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1016 , 101 S.Ct. 577 , 66 L.Ed.2d 475 (1980).
Hudson
v.
Mississippi
v.
Mississippi
No. 80-5171.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Dec 1, 1980.
Published
Sup. Ct. Miss. Certiorari denied.