Bliven v. Hunt

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that when the act is a “function normally performed by a judge” and when the parties “dealt with the judge in his judicial capacity,” the judge is immune from liability
• observing that “acts arising out of, or related to, individual cases before the judge are considered judicial in nature”
• noting that “acts arising out of, or related to, individual cases before the judge are considered judicial in nature”
• defining judicial actions as “acts arising out of, or related to, individual cases before the judge”
• extending quasi-judicial immunity to staff attorneys who supported state family court judges’ adjudication of attorney’s fees
• rejecting “[the plaintiff’s] contention that the actions of the family court judges in ruling on . . . vouchers [he submitted for public defender compensation] . . . were not judicial acts”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).