Solomon v. Duesenberg

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that “[o]rdinarily, at least, in determining whether a right is ‘clearly established’ this court will not look beyond Supreme Court and Sixth Circuit precedent”
• holding outside counsel for the City of Louisville was entitled to qualified immunity when they were “clearly acting as the city’s agent”
• finding that city officials and outside counsel acting at the sovereign’s behest were entitled to qualified immunity against RICO claims asserted by investment managers for city police pension fund for being ousted
• private attorneys serving as outside counsel to a city may assert qualified immunity
• “Section 1983 was not intended to abolish [judicial and prosecutorial] immunity . . . and we have been given no reason to suppose that RICO was intended to abolish it either.”
• applying qualified and absolute immunity to RICO claims

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).