Acosta v. Ames Department Stores, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “[t]he uncorroborated testimony of a victim or other percipient witness” is “ordinarily” sufficient on its own to support a finding of probable cause”
• concluding that probable cause existed based on store detective’s account of shoplifting, despite other evidence plaintiff 1 Defendants raised two cases, Rahim, 51 F.4th 402 and Charron v. Cnty. of York, 49 F.4th 608 (1st Cir. 2022
• stating that the court can only consider the “face of the complaint” in 10 deciding whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity on a motion to dismiss
• instructing that regarding probable cause, “the material facts[] [include] what the police knew at the moment of the arrest”
• instructing that regarding probable cause, \the material facts[ ] [include] what the police knew at the moment of the arrest\
• explaining how competing inferences can still be resolved on summary judgment when the underlying facts are not disputed and opposing party’s proffer was merely colorable

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).