Case Citator › Santiago v. Warminster Township

Santiago v. Warminster Township

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

Criticized by some courts
Court
Third Circuit
Citation
629 F.3d 121
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
31 of 31
Citing cases (total)
31
Treatment dates
2016
Criticized by some courts
At least one reviewed court has criticized this case’s reasoning. No reviewed court has overruled it. Santiago v. Warminster Township has been criticized, but remains good law on the citations reviewed. All 31 flagged citations have been read, and the 1 confirmed treatment is listed below.
More on how this was screened

The Fifth Circuit criticized Santiago's discussion of pleading the identity of a municipal policymaker as off-hand, unspecific dicta that did not persuade it to disregard Supreme Court precedent. The other citing opinions applied Santiago's pleading and supervisory-liability rules or placed adverse language on other authorities.

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.

31 later cases cite Santiago v. Warminster Township; 31 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 Santiago v. Warminster Township?

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

Criticized

  • The Fifth Circuit criticized Santiago's discussion of pleading the identity of a municipal policymaker as off-hand, unspecific dicta.

    Robert Groden v. City of Dallas · Fifth Circuit · filed

    811 F.3d 14, 20 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (citing dicta in Santiago and Baxter with approval when dismissing a case because the plaintiff “never indicated the contours of any type of municipal policy”). These off-hand, unspecific, remarks in dicta unaccompanied by analysis do not persuade us to disregard the clear language of the Supreme Court.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Santiago v. Warminster Township 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