Donald Wige v. City of Los Angeles

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that, as a general rule, the requirements for issue preclusion in California “will be met when courts are asked to give preclusive effect to preliminary hearing probable cause findings in subsequent civil actions for false arrest and malicious prosecution”
• explaining that courts apply state law to determine 23 preclusive effect of state court judgments
• avoiding the need to “resolve any conflict between McCutchen and Schmidlin,” because Wige was entitled to relief under either approach
• setting forth requirements in a subsequent § 1983 action for issue preclusion under California law and circumstances for when a court can give preclusive effect to a probable cause determination from a prior preliminary hearing
• issue 1 preclusion does not apply when “evidence known to the arresting officers is materially different 2 from the evidence presented at the preliminary hearing”
• “mere speculation” that an officer had fabricated evidence was insufficient to defeat summary judgment

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).