No. 18-9530
Terry Margheim v. Kenneth Buck, et al.
IFP
Tags: favorable-termination fourth-amendment innocence legal-process malice probable-cause supreme-court-precedent unlawful-seizure
Latest Conference:
2019-10-01
Question Presented (from Petition)
Are malice and favorable termination indicative of innocence, necessary elements to prove a violation of the Fourth Amendment?
If the legal process is tainted and probable cause is lacking, does the tainted determination accrue, extinguish, or somehow convert an unlawful seizure claim into a separate claim under the clarification by Manuel v. City of Joliet of Supreme Court precedent?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Are malice and favorable termination indicative of innocence, necessary elements to prove a violation of the Fourth Amendment?
Docket Entries
2019-10-07
Petition DENIED.
2019-07-11
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.
2019-07-09
Amended proof of service filed with respect to brief in opposition of respondents Kenneth Buck, et al.
2019-06-25
Brief of respondents Kenneth Buck, et al. in opposition filed.
2019-05-25
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due July 3, 2019)
Attorneys
Kenneth Buck, et al.
Andrew David Ringel — Hall & Evans, LLC, Respondent
Terry Margheim
Terry Margheim — Petitioner