...Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 334, where it was held that judges of courts of record of superior or general jurisdiction are not liable to civil actions for their judicial acts, even when the acts are in excess of their jurisdiction, and are alleged to have been done corruptly and maliciously....

...established federal law that judges of general jurisdiction are absolutely immune from monetary liability "for their judicial acts, even when such acts are...alleged to have been done maliciously or corruptly." Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335, 351. It is also established that this immunity is in no way diminished...

...and corruptly." In Bradley v. Fisher, supra, it was held : "Judges of courts of superior or general jurisdiction are not liable to civil actions for their...alleged to have been done maliciously or corruptly," and "the allegation of malicious or corrupt motives could always be made, and if the motives could...

...Supreme Court of the United States there held "that judges of courts of records, of superior or general jurisdiction, are not liable to civil actions for...acts are in excess of their jurisdiction, and are allei-ed to have been done maliciously and corruptly — a distinction as to their liab:lity being...

...respect to tin-m, 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." In a later...

...as judges of courts of superior and general jurisdiction, are exempt from civil liability in damages for their judicial acts, even when such acts are in excess of their jurisdiction, provided there is not a clear absence of jurisdiction. McDaniel v. Harrell, — Fla. — , 87 So. 631....