Pfeiffer v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company

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 attaches to plea bargaining activity “due to its intimate association with the judicial process”
• holding that state attorneys were absolutely immune from claims that they engaged in coercive plea bargaining by threatening 23 No. 09-6205 Rouse v. Powdle, et al. to file sexual assault charges against a physician if he did not agree to give up his medical practice
• explaining that “the more distant a function is from the judicial process and the initiation and presentation of the state’s case, the less likely it is that absolutely immunity will attach”
• rejecting the idea “that a party may force remand of an action after its removal from state court by amending the complaint to destroy the federal court’s jurisdiction over the action.”
• immunity may attach to even administrative or investigative acts when necessary for a prosecutor to function as an officer of court
• “[T]he propriety of removal is judged on the complaint as it stands at the time of the removal.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).