Junar Construction Co. v. Town Board

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that absolute immunity applies “as long as a prosecutor acts with colorable authority. . . regardless of motivation”
• holding that the plaintiff’s claim that “his neighbors’ complaints which led to the charges were false” were “insufficient” to show bad faith or harassment, and did not “overcome the presumption that federal courts should not interfere in ongoing state court matters”
• holding that the plaintiff’s claim that “his neighbors’ complaints which led to the charges were false” were “insufficient” to show bad faith or harassment, and did not “overcome the presumption that federal courts should not interfere in ongoing state court matters”
• stating that district court correctly determined, based on the pleadings, that Spota and subordinate prosecutor “were not entitled to absolute immunity for their conduct during the investigative stage of the prosecution”
• rejecting a claim of county liability for the conduct of county prosecutors because “there was no evidence of a constitutional violation” at the investigative stage
• noting that the “law does not require a malicious prosecution plaintiff to prove his innocence, or even that the termination of the criminal proceeding was indicative of innocence . . . [the] burden is to demonstrate a final termination that is not inconsistent with innocence.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).