If you are unable to see this message, click here to view it in a web browser.

Justia Daily Opinion Summaries

US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
August 29, 2020

Table of Contents

Laskar v. Hurd

Civil Rights, Constitutional Law

COVID-19 Updates: Law & Legal Resources Related to Coronavirus

Click here to remove Verdict from subsequent Justia newsletter(s).

New on Verdict

Legal Analysis and Commentary

Drafted and Shafted: Who Should Complain About Male-Only Registration?

SHERRY F. COLB

verdict post

Cornell law professor comments on a recent opinion by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit holding that requiring men but not women to register for the draft is constitutional under mandatory U.S. Supreme Court precedents. Specifically, Colb considers what the U.S. Supreme Court should do if it agrees to hear the case and more narrowly, whether the motives of the plaintiffs in that case bear on how the case should come out.

Read More

US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Opinions

Laskar v. Hurd

Docket: 19-11719

Opinion Date: August 28, 2020

Judge: William Holcombe Pryor, Jr.

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law

Plaintiff filed suit alleging that four officials at the Georgia Institute of Technology played a role in creating a report that falsely accused him of stealing resources from the Institute, which then led to his arrest and prosecution for racketeering and theft. Plaintiff filed suit against the officials in the district court for malicious prosecution under the Fourth Amendment. The district court granted the officials' motion to dismiss the complaint. The Eleventh Circuit held that a dismissal for untimeliness qualifies as a favorable termination in a claim for malicious prosecution under the Fourth Amendment. The court explained that, because plaintiff's complaint alleges that the prosecution against him formally terminated and does not allege that he was convicted or that he admitted his guilt to each charge that justified his seizure, he has alleged that he received a favorable termination. The court also held that plaintiff has alleged that two of the officials violated his clearly established constitutional rights by initiating the warrant proceedings without probable cause and with malice; the officials caused his seizures; and the officials violated plaintiff's clearly established rights to not be seized based on intentional and material misstatements in a warrant application. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

Read Opinion

Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.

About Justia Opinion Summaries

Justia Daily Opinion Summaries is a free service, with 68 different newsletters, covering every federal appellate court and the highest courts of all US states.

Justia also provides weekly practice area newsletters in 63 different practice areas.

All daily and weekly Justia newsletters are free. Subscribe or modify your newsletter subscription preferences at daily.justia.com.

You may freely redistribute this email in whole.

About Justia

Justia is an online platform that provides the community with open access to the law, legal information, and lawyers.

Justia

Contact Us| Privacy Policy

Unsubscribe From This Newsletter

or
unsubscribe from all Justia newsletters immediately here.

Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Justia

Justia | 1380 Pear Ave #2B, Mountain View, CA 94043