Case Citator › Edward Coogan and Margaret Coogan v. City of Wixom, Bruce Kirby and Philip Leonard

Edward Coogan and Margaret Coogan v. City of Wixom, Bruce Kirby and Philip Leonard

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Overruled in part
Court
Sixth Circuit
Citation
820 F.2d 170
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
37 of 37
Citing cases (total)
37
Treatment dates
2001–2014
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. Coogan v. City of Wixom was overruled in part. The Sixth Circuit rejected its reliance on state tort elements to define a federal malicious prosecution claim, and later criticized its probable cause preclusion reasoning.
More on how this was screened

Those two treatments are listed below. All 37 flagged citations have been read; later courts continue to cite Coogan's separate municipal liability and Michigan preliminary hearing holdings.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

37 later cases cite Edward Coogan and Margaret Coogan v. City of Wixom, Bruce Kirby and Philip Leonard; 37 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Edward Coogan and Margaret Coogan v. City of Wixom, Bruce Kirby and Philip Leonard?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Overruled in part

  • The Sixth Circuit rejected Coogan's rule that a federal malicious prosecution claim depends on satisfying state tort elements.

    Frantz v. Village of Bradford · Sixth Circuit · filed

    We note, however, that Coogan was decided prior to Albright and is no longer good law. The Albright court addressed the question of what constitutional support existed for a federal malicious prosecution claim, and held that, in a case involving underlying Fourth Amendment violations, the Fourth Amendment is the only “peg” on which to hang a § 1983 claim alleging malicious prosecution. Thus, we hold that Albright precludes reliance on state law to define a § 1983 federal cause of action.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Criticized

  • The Sixth Circuit faulted Coogan's probable cause preclusion reasoning for overlooking the general rule that unappealable rulings lack preclusive effect.

    Bradley v. Reno · Sixth Circuit · filed

    Coogan v. City of Wixom, 820 F.2d 170, 175 (6th Cir. 1987) (Michigan), overruled on other grounds, Frantz v. Village of Bradford, 245 F.3d 869 (6th Cir. 2001). But these decisions do not bind us—Prokos because we did not publish it, the other decisions because Ohio is not Michigan or Tennessee. Nor do these decisions convince. They do not explain why courts should recognize a § 1983/probable cause exception to the norm that unappealable rulings are not eligible for issue preclusion. They do not indeed acknowledge the norm at all.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Edward Coogan and Margaret Coogan v. City of Wixom, Bruce Kirby and Philip Leonard and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace