Difference between revisions of "Randall v. Brigham"
From Conservapedia
(New page: In ''Randall v. Brigham'', 7 Wall. 523 (1869), the U.S. Supreme Court made its first statement of the doctrine of absolute judicial immunity. The Court stated that judges are not ...) |
(Bold, links) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | In ''Randall v. Brigham'', 7 Wall. 523 (1869), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] made its first statement of the doctrine of absolute [[judicial immunity]]. The Court stated that judges are not responsible "to private parties in civil | + | In '''''Randall v. Brigham''''', 7 Wall. 523 (1869), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] made its first statement of the doctrine of absolute [[judicial immunity]]. The Court stated that [[judges]] are not responsible "to private parties in [[civil action]]s for their judicial acts, however injurious may be those acts, and however much they may deserve condemnation, unless perhaps where the acts are palpably in excess of the jurisdiction of the judges, and are done maliciously or corruptly." ''Id.'' at 537. |
A few years later, in ''[[Bradley v. Fisher]]'', 13 Wall. 335, 351 (1872), the Court reconsidered its earlier statement and concluded that "the qualifying words used were not necessary to a correct statement of the law ...." | A few years later, in ''[[Bradley v. Fisher]]'', 13 Wall. 335, 351 (1872), the Court reconsidered its earlier statement and concluded that "the qualifying words used were not necessary to a correct statement of the law ...." | ||
| + | |||
[[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]] | [[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]] | ||
[[category:Judicial Immunity]] | [[category:Judicial Immunity]] | ||
Revision as of 02:31, January 14, 2008
In Randall v. Brigham, 7 Wall. 523 (1869), the U.S. Supreme Court made its first statement of the doctrine of absolute judicial immunity. The Court stated that judges are not responsible "to private parties in civil actions for their judicial acts, however injurious may be those acts, and however much they may deserve condemnation, unless perhaps where the acts are palpably in excess of the jurisdiction of the judges, and are done maliciously or corruptly." Id. at 537.
A few years later, in Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335, 351 (1872), the Court reconsidered its earlier statement and concluded that "the qualifying words used were not necessary to a correct statement of the law ...."
