In the United States, a district attorney (DA), county attorney, state's attorney, prosecuting attorney, commonwealth's attorney, state attorney or solicitor is the chief prosecutor and/or chief law enforcement officer representing a U.S. state in a local government area, typically a county or a group of counties. The exact name and scope of the office varies by state. Alternative titles for the office include county attorney, solicitor, or county prosecutor. Generally, the prosecutor represents the people of the jurisdiction and in many states their authority stems from the state constitution. Unlike similar roles in other common law judicial systems, these are elected, and their holders usually have an allegiance to a political party or faction, rather than being held by a career civil servant appointed on merit in an independent process.
Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (2006), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the pleading standard for retaliatory prosecution claims against government officials. After a successful lobbying attempt by the CEO of a manufacturing company against competing devices that the US Postal Service supported, the CEO found himself the target of an investigation by US postal inspectors and a criminal prosecution that was dismissed for lack of evidence. The CEO then filed suit against the inspectors and other government officials for seeking to prosecute him in retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights to criticize postal policy. The Court ruled 5-2 that to prove that the prosecution was caused by a retaliatory motive, the plaintiff bringing such a claim must allege and prove that the criminal charges were brought without probable cause.
United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (2000), was a United States Supreme Court case involving Webster Hubbell, who had been indicted on various tax-related charges, and mail and wire fraud charges, based on documents that the government had subpoenaed from him. The Fifth Amendment provides that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." The Supreme Court has, since 1976, applied the so-called "act-of-production doctrine". Under this doctrine, a person can invoke his Fifth Amendment rights against the production of documents only where the very act of producing the documents is incriminating in itself.
Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982), was a US Supreme Court case that dealt with immunity from prosecution of government officials performing discretionary functions when their actions did not violate clearly-established law.
Witness immunity from prosecution occurs when a prosecutor grants immunity to a witness in exchange for testimony or production of other evidence.
Davis v. City of Las Vegas, 478 F.3d 1048, was a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined whether a Las Vegas, Nevada police officer utilized excessive force when making an arrest.
Receptor-interacting serine/threonine-protein kinase 2 is an enzyme that in humans is encoded by the RIPK2 gene.
Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985), was a United States Supreme Court case deciding on the issue of immunity of cabinet officers from suits from individuals.
Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976), was a United States Supreme Court case in which district attorneys or prosecutors were found to have full immunity from civil suits resulting from their government duties.
Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352 (1991), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that a prosecutor may dismiss jurors who are bilingual in Spanish and English from juries that will consider Spanish-language testimony.
In United States law, absolute immunity is a type of sovereign immunity for government officials that confers complete immunity from criminal prosecution and suits for damages, so long as officials are acting within the scope of their duties. The Supreme Court of the United States has consistently held that government officials deserve some type of immunity from lawsuits for damages, and that the common law recognized this immunity. The Court reasons that this immunity is necessary to protect public officials from excessive interference with their responsibilities and from "potentially disabling threats of liability."
Samantar v. Yousuf, 560 U.S. 305 (2010), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court concerning whether Muhammad Ali Samatar, prime minister of Somalia from 1987 to 1990, could be sued in United States courts for allegedly overseeing killings and other atrocities. Samatar then lived in Virginia, and some of his victims had sued him under the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991.
Okla. Tax Commission v. Citizen Band, Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Okla., 498 U.S. 505 (1991), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the tribe was not subject to state sales taxes on sales made to tribal members, but that they were liable for taxes on sales to non-tribal members.
German submarine U-478 was a Type VIIC U-boat of Nazi Germany's Kriegsmarine during World War II.
Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U.S. 581 (1900), is a United States Supreme Court decision which addressed two questions relating to the Due Process Clause. First, whether Utah's practice of allowing prosecutors to directly file criminal charges without a grand jury were consistent with due process, and second, whether Utah's use of eight jurors instead of twelve in "courts of general jurisdiction" were constitutional.
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 577 U.S. ___ (2016), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States clarified whether a case becomes moot when a party provides a settlement offer that satisfies a named plaintiff's claims in a class action suit and whether a government contractor is entitled to "derivative sovereign immunity".
Erich Riedl was a German politician, representing the Christian Social Union in Bavaria (CSU). He was the parliamentary state secretary for the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy from 1987 to 1993.
Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10 (1948), was a significant United States Supreme Court decision addressing search warrants and the Fourth Amendment. In this case, where federal agents had probable cause to search a hotel room but did not obtain a warrant, the Court declared the search was "unreasonable."
Lineage B.1.617 is a lineage of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. It first came to international attention in late March 2021 after the newly established INSACOG performed genome sequencing on positive samples throughout various Indian states. Analysis of samples from Maharashtra had revealed that compared to December 2020, there was an increase in the fraction of samples with the E484Q and L452R mutations. Lineage B.1.617 later came to be dubbed a double mutant by news media.
Torres v. Texas Department of Public Safety, 597 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with the Uniformed Services Employment and Re-employment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA) and state sovereign immunity. In a 5–4 decision issued in June 2022, the Court ruled that state sovereign immunity does not prevent states from being sued under federal law related to the nation's defense.
