Case Citator › Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs.

Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs.

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Criticized by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
436 U.S. 658
Decided
Confirmed treatments
4
Flagged citations read
1,569 of 1,569
Citing cases (total)
41,405
Treatment dates
1978–2008
Criticized by some courts
At least one reviewed court has criticized this case’s reasoning. No reviewed court has overruled it. Monell v. New York City Department of Social Services has been criticized and limited; its four confirmed treatments are listed below. All 1,569 flagged citations have been read.
More on how this was screened

The final citation appeared in a dissent that described what Monell overruled, without adversely treating Monell.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

41,405 later cases cite Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs.; 1,569 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs.?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Limited

  • The Second Circuit declined to extend Monell to impose municipal liability for a policymaking board's inaction after one prior incident, without a pattern of illegality or proof of deliberate indifference or tacit encouragement.

    Thomas Turpin v. Joseph Mailet · Second Circuit · filed

    Here, however, we have no proof of either a pattern of illegality or of an incident of the Owens v. Haas type. The proof here, in contrast, that Mailet’s arrest of Turpin was caused by the inaction of the Board is simply too attenuated to support municipal liability under § 1983. To permit liability to be predicated upon such evidence would totally overextend the principles of Monell and Rizzo. This we decline to do.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The Eleventh Circuit declined to extend Monell's recognition of municipalities as Section 1983 defendants into a right for state-created entities to challenge their creator's acts on federal constitutional grounds.

    United States v. State of Alabama · Eleventh Circuit · filed

    The Supreme Court's holding in Monell is that by enacting 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, Congress intended to make municipalities and other political subdivisions amenable to suits brought under that section. The Monell decision does not call into question the principle that a city or county cannot challenge a state statute on federal constitutional grounds. ... We are bound by this decision, which extends logically to other creatures of the state such as state universities.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The Ninth Circuit confined Monell's municipal-policy-or-custom requirements by holding that they do not govern Section 1983 claims seeking only prospective relief.

    Truth v. Kent School District · Ninth Circuit · filed

    Monell’s requirements do not apply where the plaintiffs only seek prospective relief, which is the case here.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Criticized

  • The court criticized Monell's holding and reasoning that local governing bodies and officials sued in their official capacities are persons under § 1983, but followed it under stare decisis.

    Kelly v. Richland School District 2 · D.S.C. · filed

    In no disrespect to the Supreme Court and its awesome power, so often abused, this court respectfully disagrees with Monell, and the reasoning employed therein. Because this court is a court of stare decisis, the court must follow Monell, reluctantly.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs. and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace