| − | '''Absolute judicial immunity''' is a legal doctrine establishing that a [[judge]] is not liable for monetary damages for acts performed in the exercise of his or her judicial functions. ''[[Stump v. Sparkman]]'', 435 U.S. 349 (1978). | + | '''Absolute judicial immunity''' is a legal doctrine establishing that a [[judge]] is not liable for monetary damages for acts performed in the exercise of his or her judicial functions. ''[[Stump v. Sparkman]]'', 435 U.S. 349 (1978). Judicial immunity is wider than prosecutorial immunity: a Judge is absolutely immune from civil suit so long as he has jurisdiction over the subject matter before him. That jurisdiction was found in ''Stump''.<ref>''Wilkinson v. Ellis,'' 484 F. Supp. 1072, 1084 n.28 (E.D. Pa. 1980).</ref> |
| | To determine whether an act is judicial in nature so that immunity would apply, a [[court]] looks to "the nature of the act itself, ''i.e.'', whether it is a function normally performed by a judge, and to the expectations of the parties, i.e., whether they dealt with the judge in his judicial capacity." ''Stump v. Sparkman'', 435 U.S. at 362. | | To determine whether an act is judicial in nature so that immunity would apply, a [[court]] looks to "the nature of the act itself, ''i.e.'', whether it is a function normally performed by a judge, and to the expectations of the parties, i.e., whether they dealt with the judge in his judicial capacity." ''Stump v. Sparkman'', 435 U.S. at 362. |
| | The question of whether a judge acted in excess of his or her authority in making a judicial ruling is a distinct issue from the question of whether a judge acted in the clear absence of jurisdiction. Even if a judge exceeds his or her authority in making a judicial ruling in a particular case, that judge is immune if the case is properly before him or her. ''[[Mireles v. Waco]]'', 502 U.S. 9, 13 (1991). The difference between acting in the absence of jurisdiction and acting in excess of authority is made clear in the following example: "if a probate judge, with jurisdiction over only wills and estates, should try a [[criminal]] case, he would be acting in the clear absence of jurisdiction and would not be immune from liability for his action; on the other hand, if a judge of a criminal court should convict a defendant of a nonexistent crime, he would merely be acting in excess of his jurisdiction and would be immune." ''Stump v. Sparkman'', 435 U.S. at 357 (internal citation omitted). | | The question of whether a judge acted in excess of his or her authority in making a judicial ruling is a distinct issue from the question of whether a judge acted in the clear absence of jurisdiction. Even if a judge exceeds his or her authority in making a judicial ruling in a particular case, that judge is immune if the case is properly before him or her. ''[[Mireles v. Waco]]'', 502 U.S. 9, 13 (1991). The difference between acting in the absence of jurisdiction and acting in excess of authority is made clear in the following example: "if a probate judge, with jurisdiction over only wills and estates, should try a [[criminal]] case, he would be acting in the clear absence of jurisdiction and would not be immune from liability for his action; on the other hand, if a judge of a criminal court should convict a defendant of a nonexistent crime, he would merely be acting in excess of his jurisdiction and would be immune." ''Stump v. Sparkman'', 435 U.S. at 357 (internal citation omitted). |