prosecutor immune from damages for filing charges in county court, which had no jurisdiction over juvenile defendant
How later courts described this case
- prosecutor immune from damages for filing charges in county court, which had no jurisdiction over juvenile defendant
- immunity is denied for acts which “a reasonable prosecutor would recognize as being ‘clearly outside his jurisdiction’ to represent the state before the court.”
- "[R]eason requires us to adopt a rule which does not provide immunity for those acts which are done clearly outside the authority or jurisdiction of the office."
- “[Rjeason requires us to adopt a rule which does not provide immunity for those acts which are done clearly outside the authority or jurisdiction of the office.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
KALODNER, Chief Judge
(concurring in the result).
I concur in the overruling of our holding in Picking v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 151 F.2d 240 (3 Cir., 1945).
I also concur in the affirmance of the District Court’s Order dismissing the Complaint for the sole reason that in my opinion the sweep of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1983 , R.S. Sec. 1979 does not extend to a cause of action such as that which the Complaint asserts.
Since I am of the view that the Complaint fails to state a cause of action under the Civil Rights Act, I do not reach the majority’s holding with reference to the extension of the doctrine of “judicial immunity” to prosecuting attorneys.