791 (1985). 161 . See Tuttle, 471 U.S. at 823-24, 105 S.Ct. 2427. That opinion garnered the support of only its author, then-Justice Rhenquist, and then-Chief Justice Burger, and Justices White and O'Connor. Justices Brennan, Marshall, and Blackmun, concurring in the judgment in Tuttle, specifically rejected the implication in the plurality's opinion that only existing municipal policies could form the basis for municipal liability where the acts of an official possessing final municipal policy-making authority were at issue. Id. at 831-32, 105 S.Ct. 2427. 162 . 475 U.S. 469, 106 S.Ct. 1292, 89 L.Ed.2d 452 (1986). 163 . See Pembaur, 475 U.S. at 480-81, 106 S.Ct. 1292. The Pembaur plurality, i.e., Justices Brennan, White, Marshall, and Black-mun, Ct. 1734; Gros, 181 F.3d at 615-17 (<HOLDING>); Dallas I.S.D., 153 F.3d at 216; Brady v. Fort
holding that state medical director of prison medical services corporation was not final policymaker holding that government entities are subject to suit under section 1983 when the alleged unconstitutional conduct results from an official government policy or from practices of government officials that are so wellsettled as to constitute a custom or usage with the force of law holding that an individual can be a final policymaker either by operation of state and local positive law or by custom or usage having the force of law holding that sources of state law identifying a final policymaker include not only positive state law but also custom or usage having the force oflaw holding that the phrase requirements or prohibitions    imposed under state law in section 5b of the public health cigarette smoking act of 1969 codified at section 1334b title 15 uscode is not limited to positive enactments by legislatures and agencies but may also include certain state law damage actions