3 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 9 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side — they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Van De Weghe v. Chambers.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Van De Weghe v. Chambers Anchor | green | “a claim for malicious prosecution lies when one charge is supported by probable cause but other simultaneous charges arising from the same set of facts are not” | 3 |
| 2 | Michael Klein v. Warren Steinkamp | green | “under federal law, 'the exclusionary rule does not apply in 1983 cases,' because the use of illegally obtained evidence (as opposed to an unlawful search or seizure itself) is not a constitutional violation.” | 3 |
| 3 | Shrum v. Cooke | green | “while the malicious prosecution claim does require a showing that the government acted without probable cause, shrum's allegations go to probable cause for the search. they do not concern probable cause for the 'arrest, continued confinement, or prosecution.” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment — for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.