Federal Case

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “formulation and presentation of recommendations to the state” is entitled to absolute immunity, but declining to accord immunity to “investigative or administrative” actions (citation omitted)
• holding that “formulation and presentation of recommendations to the state” is entitled to absolute immunity, but declining to accord immunity to “investigative or administrative” actions (citation omitted)
• holding that county caseworkers were “entitled to absolute immunity for their actions on behalf of the state in preparing for, initiating, and prosecuting dependency proceedings”
• holding that Rooker-Feldman does not bar a claim alleging that defendants violated plaintiff’s due process rights by making biased recommendations to the state court, resulting in an improper ruling
• holding that “child welfare workers and attorneys who prosecute dependency proceedings on behalf of the state are entitled to absolute immunity from suit for all of their actions in preparing for and prosecuting such dependency proceedings”
• holding that “child welfare workers and attorneys who prosecute dependency actions on behalf of the state are entitled to absolute immunity from suit for all of their actions in preparing for and prosecuting such dependency proceedings”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).