... judges of courts of superior or general jurisdiction are not liable to civil actions for their judicial acts, even when such acts are in excess of their jurisdiction, and are alleged to have been done maliciously or corruptly. Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of Tennessee - Seite 706von Tennessee. Supreme Court, William Wilcox Cooke, Joseph Brown Heiskell, Jere Baxter, Benjamin James Lea, George Wesley Pickle, Charles Theodore Cates, Frank Marian Thompson, Charles Le Sueur Cornelius, Roy Hood Beeler - 1903Vollansicht - Über dieses Buch
| United States. Supreme Court - 1869 - 802 Seiten
...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... | |
| 1890 - 542 Seiten
...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 to civil actions...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... | |
| 1875 - 438 Seiten
...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... | |
| 1880 - 554 Seiten
...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... | |
| United States. Supreme Court - 1870 - 800 Seiten
...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... | |
| United States. Supreme Court - 1872 - 1546 Seiten
...words used were not necessary to a correct statement of the law, and that judges of courts of superior or general jurisdiction are not liable to civil actions...been done maliciously or corruptly. A distinction must be here observed between excess of jurisdiction and the clear absence of all jurisdiction over... | |
| Charles Greenstreet Addison - 1876 - 762 Seiten
...jurisdiction must have before him some cause of action, charge, or complaint, into which he has by law their judicial acts, even when such acts are in excess...alleged to have been done maliciously or corruptly. liut it was held that the rule was otherwise as to acts done by them in the absence of all jurisdiction... | |
| United States. Circuit Court (2nd Circuit) - 1877 - 648 Seiten
...the manner in which they discharge the great trusts of their office." " Judges of Courts of superior or general jurisdiction are not liable to civil actions...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... | |
| Isaac Grant Thompson - 1877 - 882 Seiten
...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.... | |
| Isaac Grant Thompson - 1878 - 864 Seiten
...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... | |
| |