Sammye R. Holloway v. Sally Brush Clermont County, Ohio Case Brief

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit2000Docket #1112841
220 F.3d 767 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 18269 2000 WL 1071840 Federal Courts Constitutional Law Civil Procedure

Complete case briefs with LSD+

Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.

Adaptive Case Views

Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.

Exam-Ready IRAC Format

We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.

Complex Cases, Clarified

We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.

Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis

4 min read

tl;dr: A social worker allegedly lied to a mother about the status of her parental rights termination case. The court denied the social worker absolute immunity, finding her out-of-court actions were not prosecutorial advocacy functions intimately associated with the judicial process.

Legal Significance: This case narrows the scope of absolute immunity for social workers under § 1983. Immunity does not extend to out-of-court administrative actions, such as misinforming a party about case status, which usurp rather than aid the judicial function.

Sammye R. Holloway v. Sally Brush Clermont County, Ohio Law School Study Guide

Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.

Case Facts & Court Holding

Key Facts & Case Background

Sammye Holloway, after years of searching, located her children who were in the temporary custody of the Clermont County Department of Human Services (CCDHS). A court-appointed referee had already recommended that CCDHS be granted permanent custody, but the juvenile court had not yet adopted this recommendation. Holloway contacted Sally Brush, the CCDHS caseworker assigned to the case. Brush allegedly told Holloway that CCDHS had already been awarded permanent custody and that her parental rights had been terminated, which was false at the time. Brush also failed to inform the juvenile court that Holloway, a long-sought party to the proceedings, had surfaced and wished to assert her parental rights. During this period, Brush’s notes indicated a desire to prevent Holloway from “disrupting the whole process.” The juvenile court, unaware of Holloway’s appearance, subsequently granted permanent custody to CCDHS. Holloway filed a § 1983 suit for damages against Brush, who moved for summary judgment on the basis of absolute immunity. The district court granted the motion, and the Sixth Circuit granted a rehearing en banc to decide the scope of a caseworker’s immunity.

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: Is a public child services caseworker entitled to absolute immunity from a § 1983 damages suit for out-of-court actions, such as misinforming a parent about the status of a pending custody proceeding and failing to inform the court of that parent’s appearance?

No. A caseworker is not entitled to absolute immunity for such actions. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Read the full analysis

The complete holding, rule, and analysis for this case are available to LSD+ subscribers.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

About IRAC analysis

IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.

Legal Issue

Is a public child services caseworker entitled to absolute immunity from a § 1983 damages suit for out-of-court actions, such as misinforming a parent about the status of a pending custody proceeding and failing to inform the court of that parent’s appearance?

Conclusion

This case clarifies that absolute immunity for social workers is narrowly confined Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in repreh

Legal Rule

Absolute immunity for officials performing quasi-prosecutorial functions is determined by a functional Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteu

Legal Analysis

The Sixth Circuit, sitting en banc, applied the functional approach to absolute Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit,

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Flash Summary

  • A social worker is not entitled to absolute immunity for non-advocative
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaec

Read the full analysis

The complete holding, rule, and analysis for this case are available to LSD+ subscribers.

Start 14-Day Free Trial