 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Eidson v. Moore10/25/2005
es will not lie against a judge of a court of general jurisdiction for his judicial acts if such acts were committed within the jurisdiction of his court. If done within his jurisdiction neither the correctness of nor motive behind the acts affects the immunity."). The policy for such a rule has been stated as follows:
It is a judge's duty to decide all cases within his jurisdiction that are brought before him, including controversial cases that arouse the most intense feelings in the litigants. His errors may be corrected on appeal, but he should not have to fear that unsatisfied litigants may hound him with litigation charging malice or corruption. Imposing such a burden on judges would contribute not to principled and fearless decision-making but to intimidation.
Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 554 (1967). Accordingly, we hold that Judge Moore has judicial immunity from the lawsuit filed by Mr. Eidson in this case, and we affirm the trial court's dismissal of Mr. Eidson's complaint.
Costs of this appeal are to be taxed to the Appellant, Gregory Eidson, for which execution may issue if necessary.
Page 1 2 3 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|