Davis v. Severson

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that absolute immunity shields prosecutors from suit pursuant to § 1983 for their alleged malicious or selective prosecution
• holding that “once a court determines that challenged conduct involves a function covered by absolute immunity, the actor is shielded from liability for damages regardless of the wrongfulness of his motive or the degree of injury caused” (citation omitted)
• holding that “once a court determines that challenged conduct involves a function covered by absolute immunity, the actor is shielded from liability for damages regardless of the wrongfulness of his motive or the degree of injury caused” (citation omitted)
• affirming a district’s court sua sponte dismissal of the plaintiffs claim on grounds of prosecutorial immunity
• \the fact that improper motives may influence his authorized discretion cannot deprive him of absolute immunity\
• \a defendant's motivation in performing such advocative functions [as deciding to prosecute] is irrelevant to the applicability of absolute immunity\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).