Plaintiffs Stephen Matthew and Julie Hopkins kept cattle on a farm in Tennessee. Suspecting animal cruelty, Marshall County Detective Anthony Nichols searched the farm. He and Sheriff William Lamb later seized the cattle without a warrant. Plaintiffs brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Nichols and Lamb violated their Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The district court denied defendants qualified immunity as to those claims, which they now appeal. We affirm.

SUTTON, Chief Judge. Kim Carroll claims that Arlene Barber submitted an invalid version of her brother Albert Barber’s will to an Ohio probate court. Roughly 20 years after the court probated the will, Carroll allegedly learned that Albert was her father. That prompted Carroll to file this lawsuit, claiming that she should have inherited Albert’s estate. The district court concluded that she lacked standing and that the probate exception to federal jurisdiction barred it from hearing her claims. We affirm for lack of standing.

JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. In 2008, Johnetta Carr entered an Alford plea to second degree manslaughter, pleading guilty but maintaining her innocence. Over a decade later, she was pardoned. Carr then sued Louisville-Jefferson County, the City of Louisville, and several police officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging her conviction was the result of constitutional violations. The district court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding Carr’s § 1983 claims were not cognizable under the Supreme Court’s precedent in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). As Carr’s pardon satisfies the requirements of Heck, we reverse the district court and remand for Carr to pursue her claims.

MURPHY, Circuit Judge. Parties who fail to assert their rights during the litigation of a case sometimes seek to belatedly raise those rights in a collateral attack on the court’s judgment. This strategy usually does not end well—as Business Development Corporation of South Carolina (BDC) has come to learn. BDC held a mortgage on a home that had been damaged. The home’s owners sued their insurer in Ohio state court when the insurer denied coverage for the damage. They named BDC as a defendant because of its interest in the insurance proceeds. For reasons known only to BDC, it chose not to appear in the case. After the homeowners and insurer settled, the state court found that BDC had no right to the proceeds. When BDC learned of this result, it did not seek relief from the judgment in the state court. Rather, it filed this federal suit alleging that the insurer, its lawyers, and the homeowners’ lawyers all colluded to defraud it. The district court dismissed the suit under Ohio’s claim-preclusion law. Because BDC cannot meet the demanding test required to attack the state court’s judgment in this collateral fashion, we affirm.