# Southerland Ex Rel. Southerland v. City of New York

> Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · May 14, 2012 · 681 F.3d 122

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9499943

## Case

- **Full name:** Sonny B. SOUTHERLAND, Sr., Individually and as Parent and Natural Guardian of Venus Southerland, Sonny B. Southerland, Jr., Nathaniel Southerland, Emmanuel Felix, Kiam Felix, and Elizabeth Felix, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Timothy Woo, John Does 1-9, Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
- **Decided:** May 14, 2012
- **Citations:** 681 F.3d 122; 2012 WL 1848360
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Judges:** Raggi, Jacobs, Cabranes, Wesley, Livingston
- **Cited by:** 19 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9499943

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding that child protective services caseworker was not entitled to summary judgment or qualified immunity for making alleged misrepresentations in affidavit used to procure a warrant for search of parent’s home
- noting that “any interference with family integrity must be in accord with procedural and substantive due process guarantees”
- noting that “[m]unicipalities are not liable under [§ ]1983 for the actions of their employees based on respondeat superior; municipalities are liable only if the violation of individual rights results from the government’s policy or custom”
- explaining that courts correct errors in an affidavit to determine if probable cause still exists
- explaining the two-part preliminary showing — intent and materiality — defendant must make to merit a Franks hearing

## Opinion text

Chief Judge JACOBS dissents in an opinion joined by Judges CABRANES, RAGGI, WESLEY, and LIVINGSTON.
ORDER
Following disposition of this appeal on February 2, 2012, and prior to the amended disposition on May 14, 2012, an active judge of the Court requested a poll on whether to rehear the case in banc. A poll having been conducted and there being no majority favoring in banc review, rehearing in banc is hereby DENIED.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9499943. Public record. Not legal advice.