Traditionally, such attempts have been roundly rebutted by invoking
absolute judicial immunity, which protects those involved in proceedings (or in their preparation) from liability.
Not exact matches
My brief review of Mr. Schmidt's case has all the makings of
Judicial History where allegedly breaking the rules and the law, «in the public interest», may not favour
absolute immunity for the AG.
«The doctrine of
judicial immunity affords state judges
absolute immunity for past
judicial acts regarding matters within their court's jurisdiction, even if their exercise of authority is flawed by the commission of grave procedural errors.»
However, because the entry of the order was the specific act that gave rise to the plaintiffs» claims,
judicial immunity was an
absolute bar to the civil suit, according to Hamilton.
Such a conclusion would result in harassment of all judges and could be used to justify
absolute control of the Judiciary by the KBA, and would destroy the Doctrine of
Judicial Immunity.
The function of
absolute immunity in the performance of
judicial duties is not to shield members of the judiciary from liability for their own misconduct, but rather «to protect their offices from the deterrent effect of suit alleging improper motives where there has been no more than a mistake or a disagreement on the part of the complaining party with the decision made.»
(b) Acts undertaken by a prosecutor in preparing for the initiation of
judicial proceedings or for trial, and which occur in the course of his role as an advocate for the State, are entitled to the protections of
absolute immunity.