Williams v. Cambridge Board of Education (2004)
green
· 55 citation events
across 14 courts.
Showing the 27 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 2004 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
200420152026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
Harris v. Bornhorst (2008)
Allen v. Cambridge Bd. of Educ., 370 F.3d 630, 637 (6th Cir.2004) (internal quotation marks omitted).
green
United States v. Jackson, Tarry (2005)
Allen v. Cambridge Bd. of Educ., 370 F.3d 630, 637 (6th Cir.2004) ("law enforcement is under no obligation to give any credence to a suspect's story ... nor should a plausible explanation in any sense require the officer to forego arrest pending further investigation if the facts as initially discovered provide probable cause" (internal quotation marks omitted)).
green
Coones v. Board of County Commissioners (2026)
Allen v. Cambridge Bd. of Educ., 370 F.3d 630, 637 (6th Cir. 2004)) (brackets omitted). “[O]rdinarily, the statement of a victim of a crime to police may establish probable cause absent some reason to think the statement not trustworthy.” Cortez, 478 F.3d at 1121 .
green
Sharon Stanford v. Northmont City Sch. Dist. (2023)
Allen v. Cambridge Bd. of Educ., 370 F.3d 630, 639 (6th Cir. 2004).
green
Felders v. Malcom (2014)
Allen v. Cambridge Bd. of Educ., 370 F.3d 630, 637 (6th Cir.2004). *880 A drug dog sniff outside a car during a lawful traffic stop is not a search.
green
Heyne v. Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools (2011)
Allen v. Cambridge Bd. of Educ., 370 F.3d 630, 642 (6th Cir.2004); see also Buchanan, 99 F.3d at 1359 (noting that “once school administrators tell a student what they heard or saw, ask why they heard or saw it, and allow a brief response, a student has received all the process that the Fourteenth Amendment demands!.]” (quoting C.B. by Breeding v. Driscoll, 82 F.3d 383, 386 (11th Cir.1996))).
green
Tabatha Manley v. Paramount's Kings Island (2008)
See JA 37-40, 48-49; Williams, 370 F.3d at 637 (noting that the “three girls all conveyed the same essential information to [the police], and their written statements matched their oral statements”).
noting that the “three girls all conveyed the same essential information to [the police], and their written statements matched their oral statements”
green
Radvansky v. City of Olmsted Falls (2007)
Allen v. Cambridge Bd. of Educ., 370 F.3d 630, 636 (6th Cir.2004) (citing Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 91 , 85 S.Ct. 223 , 13 L.Ed.2d 142 (1964)).
green
Rothhaupt v. Maiden (2005)
Allen v. Cambridge Bd. of Educ., 370 F.3d 630, 636 (6th Cir.2004).
green
Geoffrey M. Radvansky v. City of Olmsted Falls (2005)
Allen v. Cambridge Bd. of Educ., 370 F.3d 630, 636 (6th Cir.2004).
green
Cedric Warren v. Unified Government of Wyandotte County and Kansas City, Kansas, et al. (2026)
Allen v. Cambridge Bd. of Educ., 370 F.3d 630, 637 (6th Cir. 2004) (citation modified)). 42 Cortez v. McCauley, 478 F.3d 1108, 1121 (10th Cir. 2007). 43 Coones v. Bd. of Cnty.
citation modified
green
Domonique Moore v. Unified Government of Wyandotte County and Kansas City, Kansas, et al. (2026)
Allen v. Cambridge Bd. of Educ., 370 F.3d 630, 637 (6th Cir. 2004) (citation modified)). 42 Cortez v. McCauley, 478 F.3d 1108, 1121 (10th Cir. 2007). 43 Coones v. Bd. of Cnty.
citation modified
green
Quarles v. City Of Zanesville (2025)
Allen v. Cambridge Bd. of Educ., 370 F.3d 630, 638 (6th Cir. 2004). b.
green
Stanford v. Northmont City Schools (2023)
Allen v. Cambridge Bd. of Educ., 370 F.3d 630, 639 (6th Cir. 2004) (citations omitted).
citations omitted
green
Hutchinson v. City of Middletown, Ohio (2022)
Allen v. Cambridge Bd. of Educ., 370 F.3d 630, 638 (6th Cir. 2004)).
green
Ellison v. Martin (2020)
Allen v. Cambridge Bd. of Educ., 370 F.3d 630 , 636 (6th Cir. 2004) (“A law enforcement officer may not seize an individual except after establishing probable cause that the individual has committed, or is about to commit, a crime.”); Crockett v. Cumberland Coll., 316 F.3d 571, 580 (6th Cir. 2003) (“[A]ny arrest without probable cause violates the Fourth Amendment.”).
“A law enforcement officer may not seize an individual except after establishing probable cause that the individual has committed, or is about to commit, a crime.”
green
Sollenberger v. Sollenberger (2016)
Allen v. Cambridge Bd. of Edue., 370 F.3d 630, 636 (6th Cir.2004).
green
Acklin v. City of Inkster (2015)
Allen v. Cambridge Bd. of Educ., 370 F.3d 630, 636 (6th Cir.2004)).
green
Mallory v. City of Riverside (2014)
Allen v. Cambridge Bd. of Educ., 370 F.3d 630, 636 (6th Cir.2004).
green
Sennett v. United States (2011)
Allen v. Cambridge Bd. of Educ., 370 F.3d 630, 638 (6th Cir.2004) ("An arrest grounded in probable cause does not become invalid merely because the State chooses not to prosecute the individual or a jury opts for acquittal.”); Posr v. Court Officer Shield #207, 180 F.3d 409, 417 (2d Cir.1999) (distinguishing probable cause to arrest from probable cause to prosecute); Ireland v. Tunis, 113 F.3d 1435, 1449-50 (6th Cir.1997) (holding that a state court’s finding that the prosec…
green
Stone v. City of Grand Junction, Tenn. (2011)
Allen v. Cambridge Bd. of Educ., 370 F.3d 630, 638 (6th Cir.2004)).
green
Kerr v. Hurd (2010)
Allen v. Cambridge Bd. of Educ., 370 F.3d 630, 636 (6th Cir.2004).
green
Rodriguez v. City of Cleveland (2009)
Allen v. Cambridge Bd. of Educ., 370 F.3d 630, 636 (6th Cir.2004).
green
Dever v. Kelly (2008)
Allen v. Cambridge Bd. of Educ., 370 F.3d 630, 636 (6th Cir.2004).
green
Ronnie Harris v. United States (2005)
See, e.g., Williams v. Cambridge Bd. of Educ., 370 F.3d 630 , 643 (6th Cir.2004) (rejecting plaintiffs Ohio-law malicious-prosecution claim when plaintiff “failed to allege any facts that demonstrate[d defendant] acted with malice toward him in commencing [the] prosecution”); Coker v. Summit County Sheriff’s Dep’t, 90 Fed.Appx. 782, 786 (6th Cir.2003) (rejecting Ohio malicious-prosecution claim because the complaint “failed to set forth any facts in support of a showing of m…
green
Harris v. United States (2005)
See, e.g., Williams v. Cambridge Bd. of Educ., 370 F.3d 630 , 643 (6th Cir. 2004) (rejecting plaintiff’s Ohio- law malicious-prosecution claim when plaintiff “failed to allege any facts that demonstrate[d defendant] acted with malice toward him in commencing [the] prosecution”); Coker v. Summit No. 04-3520 Harris v. United States Page 5 County Sheriff’s Dep’t, No. 02-3271, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 26591 , at *11 (6th Cir. Dec. 15, 2003) (rejecting Ohio malicious-prosecution clai…
rejecting plaintiff’s Ohio- law malicious-prosecution claim when plaintiff “failed to allege any facts that demonstrate[d defendant] acted with malice toward him in commencing [the] prosecution”
green
D.G. v. Somerset Hills School District (2008)
See, e.g., Williams v. Cambridge Bd. of Educ., 370 F.3d 630 , 651 (6th Cir.2004).