Case Resources
Search this Case
in
Google Scholar
on the Web
Google
Web Search
MSN
Web Search
Yahoo!
Web Search
in the News
Google
News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google
Blog Search
Technorati
Blog Search
in other Databases
Google
Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Paul J. Carey, et al., Plaintiffs, Appellants, v. City of Fall River, et al., Defendants, Appellees
United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit. - 870 F.2d 40
Heard Jan. 9, 1989.Decided March 20, 1989
Max Volterra (argued), with whom Volterra, Goldberg & Mangiaratti, Attleboro, Mass., was on brief, for plaintiffs, appellants.
Daniel J. O'Connell, III, Boston, Mass., for defendant, appellee Lionel J. Desrochers.
John J. Harrington, Fall River, Mass., for defendant, appellee Raymond E. Conroy.
Before CAMPBELL, Chief Judge, and ALDRICH and COFFIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
After careful review of the record, briefs, and arguments, we affirm for substantially the reasons set forth in the district court's opinion. Carey v. City of Fall River, --- F.Supp. ---- (D.Mass.1988). We note in particular our agreement with the district court that "It cannot be said that when defendants in this case sought out the criminal complaint against Paul Carey they 'clearly' did not have probable cause." --- F.Supp. at ---- n. 1. Because there was no clear lack of probable cause, defendants cannot be held liable for violating plaintiff's substantive due process rights on a malicious prosecution theory. Floyd v. Farrell, 765 F.2d 1, 5 (1st Cir.1985).
AFFIRMED.