widespread, and longstanding practice by the police chief of failing to provide adequate notice to the lawful owners of property lawfully-seized by the police of their right to re-claim same prior to disposition thereof by the police, where responsibility for disposing of such property had been delegated by the city to the police chief); and McConney v. City of Houston, 863 F.2d 1180, 1184 & n. 2 (5th Cir.1989). 159 . Doe v. Dallas I.S.D., 153 F.3d at 215-16; Meadowbriar Home for Children, Inc. v. Gunn, 81 F.3d 521, 532 (5th Cir.1996); and Krueger v. Reimer, 66 F.3d 75, 76 (5th Cir.1995). 160 . 471 U.S. 808, 105 S.Ct. 2427, 85 L end County, 145 F.3d 691, 699-700 (5th Cir.1998), cert. denied. 525 U.S. 1105, 119 S.Ct. 873, 142 L.Ed.2d 774 (1999); Esteves v. Brock, 106 F.3d at 677-78, (<HOLDING>); Flores, 92 F.3d at 263; Bennett, 74 F.3d at
holding that the question of whether a municipal official is a policymaking official is a matter of state law to be decided by the court holding state of the law must be determined at time of challenged action holding that whether children are legitimate for purposes of entitlement to insurance benefits is determined by state law holding that determination of whether an official was acting on behalf of the state or the local government is determined by state law recognizing distinction between corporate officer acting on behalf of himself and corporate officer acting on behalf of his corporation