Nieves v. McSweeney

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that, in the context of a conspiracy to violate civil rights, the statute of limitations runs separately for each alleged civil rights violation
• holding that a claim for municipal liability under § 1983 requires, inter alia, proof of an underlying constitutional violation
• concluding that a § 1983 Fourth Amendment claim involving an arrest pursuant to a warrant is akin to a claim for malicious prosecution based upon the common-law distinctions between the torts of false imprisonment and malicious prosecution
• supposing that a § 1983 plaintiff must allege the common-law elements of malicious prosecution and “deprivation of a federally-protected right”
• supposing that a § 1983 plaintiff must allege the common-law elements of malicious prosecution and \deprivation of a federally-protected right\
• noting that “the question of when a cause of action accrues in a civil rights case is a matter of federal law”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).