Thompson v. Clark
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
127 later cases cite Thompson v. Clark; 127 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 Thompson v. Clark?
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
Limited
-
The court declined to extend Thompson's favorable-termination rule to a mixed-charge prosecution in which the plaintiff's convictions and dismissed charges arose from the same conduct.
Grainger v. Buckhannon · D.S.C. · filed
Thompson did not directly address proceedings involving multiple charges where some resulted in the plaintiff’s conviction and others were dismissed. The court is not persuaded that the application of Thompson to such cases permits a § 1983 claim for malicious prosecution where Plaintiff was found guilty of charges “which stemmed from the same conduct [he] disputes in [his] malicious prosecution claim.” ... His conviction bars any claim that the underlying proceedings were terminated in his favor.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court confined Thompson to eliminating the affirmative-indication-of-innocence requirement and retained Kossler's two-part inquiry for prosecutions producing both convictions and acquittals.
Bentler v. Nederostek · M.D. Pa. · filed
A review of Thompson reveals the Court abrogated Kossler only to the extent Kossler required plaintiffs to proffer affirmative evidence of innocence in addition to a lack of conviction ... The court agrees with the Third Circuit panel in Alburg that Kossler’s favorable termination analysis as applied to cases where the plaintiff’s underlying prosecution did not end without a conviction on every charge remains intact post-Thompson.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court retained Kossler's mixed-charge analysis after Thompson and applied it to decide whether dismissed and conviction charges concerned distinct offenses and conduct.
Bylsma v. Masemer · M.D. Pa. · filed
Thompson did not address whether a proceeding can ever terminate in a plaintiff’s favor when the prosecution did not end without a conviction on every charge. ... The court in Bentler concluded that, post-Thompson, what remained of Kossler was “a two-part inquiry to determine whether the plaintiff's criminal prosecution terminated in his favor when he was convicted of some but not all charges.” ... Without further guidance or binding precedent to the contrary, the court will apply this approach.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held Thompson's recognition of a Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claim unavailable for an arrest predating Thompson.
Folks v. Sainato · E.D. La. · filed
Folks was arrested on February 20, 2022. ... At that time, the Fifth Circuit followed Castellano and thus did not recognize the constitutional malicious prosecution tort. ... This changed with Thompson v. Clark, which was not decided until weeks later on April 4, 2022. ... By its plain language, this cause of action was not recognized under Fifth Circuit law at the time of the events giving rise to it.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The nonprecedential Third Circuit opinion confined Thompson to eliminating the innocence requirement and retained Kossler's mixed-verdict test for prosecutions ending in both convictions and acquittals.
Jones v. Grill · Third Circuit · filed
Kossler’s mixed-verdict test remains intact post-Thompson. Thompson abrogated only Kossler’s holding that a favorable termination requires a showing of innocence. Thompson did not address whether a proceeding can terminate in a plaintiff’s favor when he was acquitted of less than all charges, and Kossler left open that possibility where the charged offenses “contained distinct statutory requirements” and “aimed to punish two different sets of conduct[.]”
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The adopted recommendation retained an exception for an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal, holding that the nonconviction disposition did not terminate the prosecution favorably under Thompson.
Parker v. Incorporated Village of Freeport · E.D.N.Y. · filed
The Supreme Court has recently rejected Second Circuit precedent on the “favorable termination” element and held that “a Fourth Amendment claim under § 1983 for malicious prosecution does not require the plaintiff to show that the criminal prosecution ended with some affirmative indication of innocence.” ... Rather, “[a] plaintiff need only show that the criminal prosecution ended without a conviction.” ... Here, the undersigned finds Plaintiff’s claim for malicious prosecution fails as a matter of law because ... the criminal charges against Plaintiff were ACOD, which is not a “favorable determination” for the purposes of a malicious prosecution. ... while ACOD is not an admission of guilt or a conviction, it is not considered to be “termination in favor of the accused” and does not settle the question of the accused’s guilt.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court again held Thompson's Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claim unavailable for Folks's pre-Thompson arrest.
Folks v. Sainato · E.D. La. · filed
The Fifth Circuit did not recognize a Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claim when Folks was arrested in February 2022. ... But the Supreme Court’s April 2022 opinion in Thompson overruled Castellano and recognized a Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claim under Section 1983. ... As noted at footnote eleven of this order and reasons, the Fifth Circuit did not recognize a Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claim under Section 1983 when Folks was arrested in February 2022, and so no such claim was presented to the jury here.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads Thompson v. Clark 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