United States Sixth Circuit

In a suit against police officers under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 alleging violation of plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights, judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) the jury heard testimony sufficient to support its conclusion that the officers arrested plaintiff with probable cause; 2) jury instructions were not confusing, misleading, or prejudicial, and the jury's responses to the interrogatories suggest it understood the applicable law; 3) there was no inconsistency in the jury's interrogatory responses; and 4) partial success on an earlier appeal did not make plaintiff a prevailing party entitled to attorney's fees.

Appellate Information

• Argued 06/01/2007
• Decided 07/27/2007
• Published 07/27/2007

Judges

• Before: GIBBONS and COOK, Circuit Judges;  and CLELAND, District Judge.

Court

• United States Sixth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• ARGUED:L. Bryan Carr, Carr Law Firm, Mayfield Heights, Ohio, for Appellant.  John T. McLandrich, Mazanec, Raskin, Ryder & Keller Co., Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellees.   ON BRIEF:L. Bryan Carr, Leonard F. Carr, Carr Law Firm, Mayfield Heights, Ohio, for Appellant.  John T. McLandrich, James A. Climer, Robert F. Cathcart, Mazanec, Raskin, Ryder & Keller Co., Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellees.