David Wadkins v. Robert Arnold, and the First Bank & Trust Company

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that, insofar as no material disputes of fact exist, whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity is “solely a question of law”
• recognizing that offi- cer’s \conference with the Commonwealth’s Attorney and the subse- quent issuance of the warrants by a neutral and detached magistrate weigh heavily toward a finding that [officer] is immune\
• explaining that judicial officers acting in their judicial capacities and prosecutors authorizing prosecution are protected by absolute immunity
• noting that an investigating officer need not “exhaust[] every potential avenue of investigation”
• “That [the investigator’s] efforts could have been more thorough, or even that his actions may have been mistaken, does not mean that they were unreasonable.”
• “That [the investigator’s] efforts could have been more thorough, or even that his actions may have been mistaken, does not mean that they were unreasonable.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).