Lemon v. Dock Street Partners

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that a malicious prosecution claim could have merit if “probable cause [was] present at the time of arrest” but evidence later “surface[d]” that “eliminate[d] that probable cause” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• stating probable cause is a defense unless “dissipate[d],” or when “the groundless nature of the charge [is] made apparent by the discovery of some intervening fact”
• probable cause continues to exist at the time of prosecution unless undermined \by the discovery of some intervening fact.\
• \Freedom from malicious prosecution is a constitutional right that has long been clearly established\
• “To sustain a [42 U.S.C.] § 1983 claim of malicious prosecution, a plaintiff must demonstrate conduct by the defendant that is tortious under state law and that results in a constitutionally cognizable deprivation of liberty.”
• “In order for probable cause to dissipate, the groundless nature of the charge must be made apparent by the discovery of some intervening fact.” (quoting Lowth v. Town of Cheektowaga, 82 F.3d 563, 571 (2d Cir. 1996)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).