Wells v. Bonner

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that Heck bars suit where a claim “necessarily implies the invalidity of [plaintiff’s] criminal conviction”
• holding that the absence of a conviction on a charge is irrelevant to a claim of an unconstitutional false arrest because the claim focuses on “the validity of the arrest” and not “the validity of each individual charge”
• holding that a plaintiff’s false arrest claim and malicious prosecution claims were not cognizable, even though he did not plead guilty to all the charges he was arrested for, when he had pleaded guilty to a charge of resisting a search.
• explaining that the plaintiffs proof to establish his false arrest claim would demonstrate the invalidity of his conviction for resisting a search
• noting that the proof necessary to establish a false arrest claim—that there was not probable cause to arrest on charge—would necessarily demonstrate invalidity of conviction for purposes of Heck
• noting that the proof necessary to establish a false arrest claim—that there was not probable cause to arrest on charge—would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of the conviction for purposes of Heck

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).