No. 20-1351

Phillip W. Hurd, et al. v. Joy Laskar

Lower Court: Eleventh Circuit
Docketed: 2021-03-25
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Relisted (2) Experienced Counsel
Tags: 42-usc-1983 civil-rights due-process favorable-termination heck-doctrine heck-v-humphrey legal-termination malicious-prosecution section-1983 termination-of-prosecution
Latest Conference: 2022-04-14 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (from Petition)

A plaintiff alleging malicious prosecution under
42 U.S.C. § 1983 must show that the broader prosecution against him was terminated in his favor. Heck u.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 483, 484, 487 (1994). The
question presented is whether a plaintiff satisfies the
favorable-termination requirement by showing that
his prosecution has "ended in a manner that affirmatively indicates his innocence," as seven circuits
require, or merely that the termination was "not inconsistent with innocence," as the Eleventh Circuit
held below.

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether a plaintiff alleging malicious prosecution under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 must show that the broader prosecution against him was terminated in a manner that affirmatively indicates his innocence, or merely that the termination was not inconsistent with innocence

Docket Entries

2022-04-18
Petition DENIED.
2022-04-11
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/14/2022.
2021-05-11
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/27/2021.
2021-04-21
Response to petition from respondent Joy Laskar, Ph.D. filed.
2021-03-22
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 26, 2021)

Attorneys

Joy Laskar, Ph.D.
Michael Alan DaileyAnderson Dailey LLP, Respondent
Phillip A. Hurd, et al.
Stephen John Petrany — Petitioner