California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Ettlin v. Veasey, E058417, E058420 (Cal. App. 2014):
"'"Immunity exists for 'judicial' actions; those relating to a function normally performed by a judge and where the parties understood they were dealing with the judge in his official capacity. [Citations.]" [Citation.] Thus, the line is drawn "between truly judicial acts, for which immunity is appropriate, and acts that simply happen to have been done by judges. Here, as in other contexts, immunity is justified and defined by the functions it protects and serves, not by the person to whom it attaches." [Citation.]' [Citation.]" (Regan v. Price (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1491, 1495-1496.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.