...respect to them, no such limitation exists with respect to judges of superior or general authority. They are not liable to civil actions for their judicial...when such acts are in excess of their jurisdiction, unless perhaps where the acts, in excess of jurisdiction, are done maliciously or corruptly. This doctrine...

...the Supreme Court in the case of BrmUey v. Flsher, 13 Wall. 335, is that "judges of courts of record of superior or general jurisdiction are not liable...alleged to have been done maliciously or corruptly." The principle on which such exemption is founded nnd maintained rests in public policy, and was established...

...that, as a general rule, judges of courts of superior or general jurisdiction, acting under color of jurisdiction, are not liable to civil actions for...alleged to have been done maliciously or corruptly. But they draw a distinction between excess of jurisdiction and the absence of jurisdiction over the...

...Fisher, 13 Wall. 335, it is held that judges of courts of superior or general jurisdiction are uotr liable to civil actions for their judicial acts, even...alleged to have been done maliciously or corruptly ; and a distinction is made between excess of jurisdiction and the clear absence of jurisdiction over...

...them, no such limitation exists with respect to judges of superior or general authority. They are uot liable to civil actions for their judicial acts, even...when such acts are in excess of their jurisdiction, unless perhaps where the acts, in excess of jurisdiction, are done maliciously or corruptly. This doctrine...

...Heisk. (Tenn.) 197. In Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 33r>, it was held that judges of courts of record of superior or general jurisdiction, are not liable to civil actions for not answerable for slander spoken by him in the exercise of his judicial functions in reference to...

...receive their commissions, for the manner in which they discharge the great trusts of their office." " Judges of Courts of superior or general jurisdiction...alleged to have been done maliciously or corruptly." The Circuit Courts of the United States are Courts of record, and have general jurisdiction of all...

...335, it was held that nidges of courts of record of superior or general jurisdiction are not '•il'le to civil actions for their judicial acts, even when such acts are in Fausler v. Parsons. excess of their jurisdiction and are alleged to have been done maliciously or corruptly....

...Freeman, 2 Ir. CLR 460. Judges of superior or general jurisdiction are not liable in civil notions for their judicial acts, even when such acts are in excess of their jurisdiction, »nd are alleged to have been done maliciously and corruptly. BratUty v. Fii 13 Wall. 335, 351. But...

...Randall v. Biigham, 7 Wall. 523. In the last cited case it is said of judges of superior courte : They are not liable to civil actions for their judicial acts, even when euch acts are in excess of their jurisdiction, unless, perhaps, they are done maliciously or corruptly....