STEPHENS Et Al. v. ZIMMERMAN

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the defendant police officer did not act with actual malice despite the fact that she “made inconsistent, even possibly untrue, statements”
• concluding that the officer’s “inconsistent” or even “possibly untrue” statements “do not show a deliberate intent to commit a wrongful act or to harm [the plaintiff]”
• probable cause present where plaintiff matched descriptions provided by four eyewitnesses but differed from non- eyewitness’ description
• physical 12 See OCGA § 51-7-40 (“A criminal prosecution which is carried on maliciously and without any probable cause and which causes damage to the person prosecuted shall give him a cause of action.”). 9 precedent only
• “police officers ‘are not required to perform error-free investigations’ ”
• physical precedent only as to Div. 1

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).