...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...

[ Der Inhalt dieser Seite ist beschränkt. ]

...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...

...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 for their...alleged to have been done maliciously or corruptly. A distinction must be here observed between excess of jurisdiction and the clear absence of all jurisdiction...

[ Der Inhalt dieser Seite ist beschränkt. ]

...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...

...in which they discharge the great trusts of their office." " Judges of Courts of superior or general jurisdiction are not liable to civil actions for their...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...