Grossman v. Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that probable cause for a search is different than probable cause for the “arrest, continued confinement, or prosecution”
• recognizing that, after Thompson, “our precedents applying the favorable termination element are no longer good law”
• continuing to follow five-element test for malicious prosecution claims even after Thompson, but noting that following Thompson, its prior precedents applying the favorable termination element were no longer good law
• “A § 1983 malicious prosecution claim includes five elements . . . : (1) the defendant caused the plaintiff’s continued confinement or prosecution; (2) the original action terminated in favor of the plaintiff; (3
• “While the malicious prosecution claim does require a showing that the government acted without probable cause, Shrum’s allegations go to probable cause for the search. They do not concern probable cause for the ‘arrest, continued confinement, or prosecution.’ ”
• “While the malicious prosecution claim does require a showing that the government acted without probable cause, Shrum’s allegations go to probable cause for the search. They do not concern probable cause for the ‘arrest, continued confinement, or prosecution.’ ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).