Skip to main content
Second Circuit· 9/10/1991

Posr v. Doherty

Citations

  • 944 F.2d 91
  • 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 21360

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that a malicious prosecution claim can proceed even when a separate charge is supported by probable cause
  • holding that plaintiff could maintain malicious -9- prosecution claim based on groundless charges of resisting arrest and assault even if probable cause existed for disorderly conduct charge
  • holding that district court erred by “instruct[ing] that if the jury found probable cause supporting any of the three charges ... lodged against [plaintiff], no liability for malicious prosecution could be found as to any of the charges filed”
  • holding that district court erred by “instruct[ing] that if the jury found probable cause supporting any of the three charges . . . lodged against [plaintiff], no liability for malicious prosecution could be found as to any of the charges filed”
  • concluding that “pairing” each § 1983 claim with “state law tort counterpart[]” was “appropriate since, except for § 1983’s requirement that the tort be committed under color of state law, the essential elements of the two claims in each pair were substantially identical[]”
  • explaining that it is the province of the jury to decide how chronologically to order details as well as how to reconcile or reject contrary evidence

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

95 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

38 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.