Kenneth C. Voyticky v. Village of Timberlake, Ohio

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that claims for false arrest and malicious prosecution fail if there was probable cause for the arrest
• noting that “intentional infliction of emotional distress, by itself, cannot amount to a constitutional violation” and therefore evaluating it as a state law claim
• providing that a claim for false imprisonment and arrest under § 1983 requires a plaintiff to establish that officers lacked probable cause for the imprisonment or arrest
• providing that a claim for false imprisonment and arrest under § 1983 requires a plaintiff to establish that officers lacked probable cause for the imprisonment or arrest
• noting that “a facially valid warrant is normally a complete defense to a federal constitutional claim for false arrest or false imprisonment made pursuant to § 1983.”
• noting that the Mays standard applies to both search and arrest warrants

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).