Schmid v. Board of Trustees of the Firemen's Pension Fund of Louisville

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that what is relevant for a malicious prosecution claim is “information discovered by a malicious prosecution defendant after the arrest, but before the commencement of proceedings”
• dismissing claims against Doe de- fendants where plaintiff “neither identified those defendants nor described their role in the conduct at issue in this case, and the deadline for joinder of additional parties ha[d] passed”
• denying summary judgment on malicious prosecution claim because “the same facts that undermine the existence of probable cause to arrest in this case also undermine the existence of probable cause to prosecute”
• denying summary judgment on malicious prosecution claim because “the same facts that undermine the existence of probable cause to arrest in this case also undermine the existence of probable cause to prosecute”
• finding probable cause to arrest the § 1983 plaintiff for possession of stolen property “based solely on the robbery victim’s identification of the purse recovered from [the plaintiff]’s vehicle as the purse that had been stolen from her.”
• “An arresting officer 17 thus does not have a ‘duty . . . to investigate exculpatory defenses offered by the person being 18 arrested or to assess the credibility of unverified claims of justification before making an 19 arrest.’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).