7 Matching Annotations
  1. Feb 2021
  2. Oct 2020
  3. Aug 2020
  4. Jul 2020
  5. Apr 2020
  6. Feb 2014
    1. The testimony makes it manifest that he was a special police officer to some extent identified with the work of the prosecutor's office, and that position, upon well-settled grounds of public policy, required him to assist, at least, in the prosecution of offenders against the law. The services he rendered, in this instance, must be presumed to have been rendered in pursuance of that public duty, and for its performance he was not entitled to receive a special quid pro quo.
      • Court finds sufficient evidence to characterize this fellow as a public official.

      • His interaction with the prosecutor's office weighed in as a factor in suggesting he had a legal duty.

      • Since he is characterized within the rule as a public official, he cannot, as a matter of law, receive a reward for the performance of his duties.