Case Citator › Jack Frantz v. Village of Bradford, Shane Duffey

Jack Frantz v. Village of Bradford, Shane Duffey

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

Declined by some courts
Court
Sixth Circuit
Citation
245 F.3d 869
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
38 of 38
Citing cases (total)
38
Treatment dates
2001–2003
Declined by some courts
At least one reviewed court has declined to follow this case. No reviewed court has overruled it. Later Sixth Circuit panels declined to follow Frantz v. Village of Bradford's conclusion that a person cannot bring a separate federal malicious-prosecution claim under the Fourth Amendment. They held that an earlier circuit decision recognizing such a claim controlled instead.
More on how this was screened

Frantz's separate rule that state tort law does not define a federal constitutional claim remains cited favorably. All 38 flagged citations have been read; the 2 confirmed treatments are listed below.

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.

38 later cases cite Jack Frantz v. Village of Bradford, Shane Duffey; 38 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 Jack Frantz v. Village of Bradford, Shane Duffey?

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

Declined to follow

  • Held that the earlier Spurlock decision, rather than Frantz's contrary conclusion, controlled whether a separate Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claim exists.

    Darrah v. City of Oak Park · Sixth Circuit · filed

    Although we believe the Spurlock case to be binding rather than Frantz, ... Assuming, as we do, that Spurlock still binds this court even after Frantz, a plaintiff has a constitutionally cognizable claim of malicious prosecution under the Fourth Amendment.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • Followed the earlier Spurlock decision and recognized a separate Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claim despite Frantz's contrary conclusion.

    Thacker v. City of Columbus · Sixth Circuit · filed

    The Darrah Court concluded that insofar as Frantz was inconsistent with our previous decision in Spurlock, we are obliged to follow Spurlock. ... We agree that we are obliged to follow Spurlock and recognize a separate constitutionally cognizable claim of malicious prosecution under the Fourth Amendment.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Jack Frantz v. Village of Bradford, Shane Duffey 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