Legal Opinion

Robert Saterdalen v. James Spencer

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Decided August 5, 2013No. 12-2953PublishedCited by 87 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge.

Robert Saterdalen brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that detective David Rikhus submitted a false statement of probable cause to secure a warrant for Saterdalen’s arrest and that assistant county attorney James Spencer approved the warrant application even though it lacked probable cause. The complaint alleged that the subsequent arrest and detention violated Saterdalen’s constitutional rights. The district court 1 granted Rikhus and Spencer’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, holding that both officials were immune from suit. We affirm.

I. Background

In…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Harlow v. FitzgeraldSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  2. Anderson v. CreightonSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  3. Imbler v. PachtmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  4. Malley v. BriggsSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  5. Buckley v. FitzsimmonsSupreme Court of the United States · 1993

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by87 opinions

  1. David Sample v. City of WoodburyCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2016
  2. Frank Snider, III v. Matthew PetersCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2014
  3. Brad Williams v. Horace WaltersCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2014
  4. Coons v. BNSF Railway Co.District Court, D. Minnesota · 2017
  5. Christopher Kiesling v. Ross SpurlockCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2017

82 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API