42 U.S.C. § 14141
Transferred
[transferred]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 105
cases (54 in the last 5 years), 1999–2026 · leading case: Grand Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police v. Ashcroft
Grand Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police v. Ashcroft (2001)
“The plaintiff, the Grand Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police (“Grand Lodge”), seeks a declaratory judgment stating that Section 14141 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14141 , is unconstitutional as enforced because it interferes with…”
Floyd v. City of New York (2014)
“There, the DOJ commenced a civil suit against the City of Los Angeles, the Board of Police Commissioners of the City of Los Angeles, and the Los Angeles Police Department (the “LAPD”), alleging they had engaged in a pattern or practice of depriving individuals of constitutional…”
Guadalupe-Baez v. Police Officers A-Z (2016)
“See 42 U.S.C. § 14141 . Some three years later, the DOJ issued its report (the Report), which concluded that the PRPD was “broken in a number of critical and fundamental respects” and that PRPD officers had “engage[d] in a pattern and practice of excessive force in violation of…”
United States v. Maricopa (2015)
“Maricopa County’s Liability Under Title VI and 42 U.S.C. § 14141 Maricopa County advances several arguments for granting summary judgment in its favor with respect to the United States’ claims under Title VI (Counts Three, Four, and Five) and § 14141 (Counts One, Two, and Six).”
Harris v. United States (2017)
“§ 242 ; (5) violation of the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause; (6) denial of equal protection under the law, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment; (7) slavery, in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment; (8) deprivation of juvenile rights, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 14141 ;…”
United States v. City of Los Angeles (2002)
“leged that the City of Los Angeles (“the City”), the Board of Police Commissioners of the City of Los Angeles, and the Los Angeles Police Department (“LAPD”) (collectively, the “City defendants”) engaged in a pattern or practice of depriving individuals of constitutional rights…”
Connick v. Thompson (2011)
“, 42 U.S.C. § 14141 (a) (“It shall be unlawful for any governmental authority .”
United States v. County of Maricopa (2018)
“§ 12601 (formerly codified at 42 U.S.C. § 14141 ).1 The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the United States on the claims relating to the unlawful traffic stops; the parties settled the remaining claims.”
Floyd v. City of New York (2013)
“124 (1998) (discussing Title XXI of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 14141 , which allows the Attorney General to sue law enforcement agencies that "engage in a pattern or practice” of unconstitutional conduct).”
Tony Chaney v. Races and Aces (2014)
“§§ 241 and 242 and 42 U.S.C. § 14141 . Sections 241 and 242 are criminal statutes that “do not provide for a private right of action.”
Connick v. Thompson (2011)
“, 42 U. S. C. §14141 (a) (“It shall be unlawful for any governmental authority .”
United States v. Johnson (2015)
“42 U.S.C. § 14141 Claims...............:.”
— 42 U.S.C. § 14141(a) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.