Prosecutorial Immunity

459 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Brummett v. Camble
  946 F.2d 1178· 5th Cir.· 1991-11-14 ·cited 18×
  Prosecutors are absolutely immune from § 1983 liability for initiating prosecutions, even if they have a conflict of interest or act in a private capacity. A § 1983 malicious prosecution claim accrues upon favorable termination of the underlying criminal proceeding.
• Bartholomew J. Lawson and Nancy L. Lester v. Abrams
  863 F.2d 260· 2d Cir.· 1988-12-20 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the appeal from the district court's order granting leave to amend the complaint and denying a motion to dismiss based on absolute immunity was premature and dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
• Williams v. Hepting
  844 F.2d 138· 3d Cir.· 1988-04-18 ·cited 18×
  Witnesses are entitled to absolute immunity for testimony given at pretrial hearings, and federal courts should stay, rather than dismiss, civil rights claims for damages that cannot be redressed in ongoing state proceedings.
• Wolfenbarger v. Clancy Williams
  826 F.2d 930· 10th Cir.· 1987-08-03 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the defendants should have known that the law did not permit them to seize property from a pawn shop owner and turn it over to the true owner without affording the owner due process, and that the seizure of stereo items without a warrant violated clearly estab
• Smith v. Updegraff
  744 F.2d 1354· 8th Cir.· 1984-10-01 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the defendants' actions were not barred by res judicata or collateral estoppel, that the statute of limitations was correctly applied, and that the prosecutor was not immune from suit for actions outside his official duties.
• Walden v. Wishengrad
  745 F.2d 149· 2d Cir.· 1984-09-18 ·cited 18×
  A government attorney performing duties analogous to a prosecutor, such as initiating proceedings to secure a witness's appearance, is entitled to absolute immunity from liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Local governmental bodies cannot be held liable under § 1983 based on respon
• Abdullah Dohaish v. Tooley
  670 F.2d 934· 10th Cir.· 1982-02-16 ·cited 18×
  A father lacks standing to compel a prosecutor to bring charges, and prosecutors are immune from suit for decisions made within the scope of their duties.
• Perez v. Borchers
  567 F.2d 285· 5th Cir.· 1978-02-02 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the defendants, including a justice of the peace and prosecutors, were immune from civil liability under the Civil Rights Act for actions taken in their official capacities. Private citizens subpoenaed by the plaintiff could not be liable for conspiring with i
• McDONALD v. State OF Ill.
  557 F.2d 596· 7th Cir.· 1977-06-15 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the State of Illinois is immune from suit in federal court under the Eleventh Amendment, and that while defendant Weil's actions may have deprived plaintiff of a constitutional right, claims against municipalities under § 1983 require a policy or custom, not j
• Phillips v. Nash
  311 F.2d 513· 7th Cir.· 1962-12-28 ·cited 18×
  State's Attorneys are immune from suit under the federal Civil Rights Act for actions taken in connection with official prosecutions.
• Pondella Hall FOR Hire, Inc. v. Lawson Lamar
  866 So. 2d 719· Fla. 5th DCA· 2004-01-02 ·cited 17×
  Pondella Hall for Hire appeals dismissal of its counterclaims for damages arising from a civil forfeiture action. The court affirms dismissal of wrongful injunction and forfeiture damage claims but reverses dismissal of takings claims regarding personal property, remanding for de
• Townsel v. Cnty. OF Contra Costa
  820 F.2d 319· 9th Cir.· 1987-06-22 ·cited 17×
  The court held that a plaintiff's attorney's ignorance of Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(j) does not constitute good cause for failing to serve the summons and complaint within the prescribed 120-day period.
• Wilson v. Stocker
  819 F.2d 943· 10th Cir.· 1987-05-14 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the Oklahoma statute prohibiting anonymous campaign literature distribution is facially overbroad and violates the First Amendment, and that attorney's fees were properly awarded under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
• Erling Knud Ove Hansen, Jr. v. State
  503 So. 2d 1324· Fla. 1st DCA· 1987-03-10 ·cited 17×
  The court held that state prosecutors are entitled to absolute immunity for prosecutorial functions, and claims against the State and its subdivisions are barred by failure to provide statutory notice of claim.
• Johnson v. Kegans
  870 F.2d 992· 5th Cir.· 1989-04-24 ·cited 16×
  Judges and prosecutors are absolutely immune from liability for damages for acts intimately connected with the judicial and parole-granting processes, and the plaintiff failed to state a claim for injunctive relief.
• Barbera v. Smith
  836 F.2d 96· 2d Cir.· 1987-12-30 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a prosecutor is not absolutely immune for investigative actions like revealing a witness's identity or denying protection, but is entitled to qualified immunity if the conduct does not violate clearly established rights.
• MacKo v. Byron
  760 F.2d 95· 6th Cir.· 1985-04-15 ·cited 16×
  The court held that plaintiffs' second amended complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
• Clark v. Williams
  693 F.2d 381· 5th Cir.· 1982-11-24 ·cited 16×
  A civil rights suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is not the proper federal remedy when a prisoner's allegations, if true, would undermine the validity of his confinement; habeas corpus is the sole remedy in such circumstances.
• Ford v. Byrd
  544 F.2d 194· 5th Cir.· 1976-12-16 ·cited 16×
  The court held that claims for relief from confinement must proceed by habeas corpus, and prosecuting attorneys and state judges are immune from § 1983 suits.
• Arensman v. Brown
  430 F.2d 190· 7th Cir.· 1970-07-30 ·cited 16×
  The court held that prosecuting attorneys and hospital custodians are immune from civil liability for actions taken within their official capacities, and that federal courts should not interfere with state criminal proceedings absent exceptional circumstances.
• Newcomb v. Ingle
  827 F.2d 675· 10th Cir.· 1987-08-27 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 18 U.S.C. § 2520 were barred by the statute of limitations, and affirmed the district court's dismissal.
• Laughlin v. Garnett
  138 F.2d 931· D.C. Cir.· 1943-11-08 ·cited 15×
  The court held that prosecuting officers are immune from civil liability for actions taken within their official duties, and that further amendment of the complaint was not warranted.
• Millspaugh v. Cnty. Dep't OF Pub. Welf. OF Wabash Cnty.
  937 F.2d 1172· 7th Cir.· 1991-07-15 ·cited 14×
  Social workers are entitled to absolute immunity for actions taken in presenting a case to a court, and qualified immunity for actions in gathering evidence or taking initial custody, provided those actions were objectively reasonable.
• Grant v. Hollenbach
  870 F.2d 1135· 6th Cir.· 1989-03-28 ·cited 14×
  Prosecutors are entitled to absolute immunity under § 1983 for actions taken within their prosecutorial duties, including decisions to investigate, prosecute, and present evidence to a grand jury.
• Rykers v. Alford
  832 F.2d 895· 5th Cir.· 1987-11-25 ·cited 14×
  The court held that federal prosecutors are protected by absolute immunity, FBI agents by reliance on facially valid warrants, and Officer Fuqua by qualified immunity due to unclear law and facts; state law claims against the mother were properly dismissed under the domestic rela
• Olagues v. Russoniello
  797 F.2d 1511· 9th Cir.· 1986-08-26 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the United States Attorney's investigation into non-citizen voting was not based on discriminatory bias, but rather on a practical classification to discover fraudulent voting.
• Bertman Ames and Gloria Ames v. United States
  600 F.2d 183· 8th Cir.· 1979-06-20 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, finding that claims against federal agents were barred by the Federal Tort Claims Act and prosecutorial immunity, and that the malicious prosecution claim lacked sufficient allegations.
• Kissell v. Breskow
  579 F.2d 425· 7th Cir.· 1978-07-18 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the Executive Secretary of the Disciplinary Commission is clothed with quasi-judicial immunity for actions taken in that role, and that no genuine issue of material fact existed to preclude summary judgment.
• Burke v. Jerry Miller, M.D.
  580 F.2d 108· 4th Cir.· 1978-07-06 ·cited 14×
  Witnesses in state judicial proceedings are absolutely immune from civil liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and § 1985 for testimony given in their official capacity.
• Schreiber v. Rowe
  814 So. 2d 396· Fla.· 2002-03-21 ·cited 13×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that a convicted criminal defendant must obtain appellate or postconviction relief as a prerequisite to maintaining a legal malpractice action against defense attorneys, and that the statute of limitations does not commence until final relief is obt
• Hansen v. Black
  885 F.2d 642· 9th Cir.· 1989-09-19 ·cited 13×
  Summary judgment for the arresting officers is reversed because a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding whether Hansen's conduct violated a city ordinance and whether excessive force was used. Summary judgment for the Chief of Police and the City Prosecutor is affirmed
• Auriemma v. Montgomery
  860 F.2d 273· 7th Cir.· 1988-10-21 ·cited 13×
  Government attorneys are not absolutely immune from suit for alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) stemming from extra-judicial investigations of plaintiffs who had sued the government.
• Lewellen v. Raff
  843 F.2d 1103· 8th Cir.· 1988-04-04 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the district court did not err in granting a preliminary injunction against the state criminal prosecution, but erred in denying absolute prosecutorial immunity for claims arising from electronic surveillance.
• Stepanian v. Addis
  782 F.2d 902· 11th Cir.· 1986-02-18 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the alleged tort of slander or libel arose not only in the District of Columbia but also wherever the defamatory statements circulated, and dissented from affirming the dismissal of the constitutional due process violation.
• RAY v. Pickett
  734 F.2d 370· 8th Cir.· 1984-05-14 ·cited 13×
  Federal probation officers are not entitled to absolute immunity when filing a parole violation report, but are entitled to qualified immunity.
• Mr. and Mrs. Charles L. Morgan v. Odem
  552 F.2d 147· 5th Cir.· 1977-05-16 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the federal court lacked jurisdiction over the state law construction contract dispute and properly dismissed the federal claims due to insufficient allegations.
• Buckley v. Fitzsimmons
  952 F.2d 965· 7th Cir.· 1992-01-02 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a prosecutor's aggressive investigative conduct, even if considered preparation, does not fall under absolute immunity.
• McKINNEY v. State of Okla.
  925 F.2d 363· 10th Cir.· 1991-02-08 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the plaintiff's complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) because the defendants were immune from suit and the claims lacked merit.
• Rozek v. Topolnicki
  865 F.2d 1154· 10th Cir.· 1989-01-12 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to present evidence negating defendants' entitlement to qualified immunity and that the University and District Attorney's office were entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity.
• Harllel B. Jones v. Shankland
  800 F.2d 77· 6th Cir.· 1986-09-02 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the appellant's civil rights claims were time-barred by the applicable one-year statute of limitations and that county prosecutors were absolutely immune from suit.
• Campbell v. State OF Me.
  787 F.2d 776· 1st Cir.· 1986-04-03 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court's grant of summary judgment was proper because the plaintiff's claims were barred by a release, collateral estoppel, and prosecutorial immunity.
• Freeman v. Hittle
  708 F.2d 442· 9th Cir.· 1983-06-13 ·cited 12×
  Prosecuting attorneys and their investigators are absolutely immune from civil suit for actions taken within the scope of their official duties, including investigative functions related to criminal prosecutions.
• Housand v. Maxwell Heiman
  594 F.2d 923· 2d Cir.· 1979-03-20 ·cited 12×
  The court held that while the plaintiff's constitutional claims were properly dismissed for lack of state action or bias, the case should be remanded to allow the plaintiff to amend his complaint to assert diversity jurisdiction.
• Mayes v. Honn
  542 F.2d 822· 10th Cir.· 1976-10-07 ·cited 12×
  A Section 1983 civil rights action cannot be used to collaterally attack or appeal state court disbarment proceedings.
• Smart v. Jones
  530 F.2d 64· 5th Cir.· 1976-04-15 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court properly granted summary judgment for the defendants, as there were no genuine issues of material fact and the defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
• Kipps v. Ewell
  538 F.2d 564· 4th Cir.· 1976-03-03 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the defendants were entitled to dismissal of the civil rights claims, either through immunity or the defense of good faith and probable cause.
• Tyler v. Witkowski
  511 F.2d 449· 7th Cir.· 1975-02-26 ·cited 12×
  A prosecutor is immune from civil liability for actions taken within the scope of his prosecutorial duties, even if the plaintiff alleges bad faith.
• Noriega v. Farr
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-09-13 ·cited 11×
  Defendants Judge Scott Farr and Attorney General Ashley Moody are entitled to absolute immunity and are dismissed with prejudice.
• Vosburg v. Dep't OF Soc. Servs.
  884 F.2d 133· 4th Cir.· 1989-08-29 ·cited 11×
  State social workers are absolutely immune from liability for filing a child removal petition, as this action is considered prosecutorial in nature.
• Nat'l Black Police Ass'n v. Velde
  631 F.2d 784· D.C. Cir.· 1980-05-14 ·cited 11×
  The court held that federal officials are not entitled to absolute immunity for failure to terminate funding to discriminatory recipients, and that 1976 amendments did not moot the appellants' claims.