Smith v. Hancock

11 Citing cases

  1. Holsey v. Hind

    189 Ga. App. 656 (Ga. Ct. App. 1988)   Cited 12 times
    Applying federal immunity law to a state law claim

    Therefore, a district attorney is protected by the same immunity in civil cases that is applicable to judges, provided that his acts are within the scope of his jurisdiction." Smith v. Hancock, 150 Ga. App. 80, 81 ( 256 S.E.2d 627) (1979). (Emphasis supplied.)

  2. Brown v. Lewis

    CASE NO. 4:08-CV-150 (CDL) (M.D. Ga. May. 22, 2009)   Cited 4 times

    Georgia courts "have consistently held that judges are immune from liability in civil actions for acts performed in their judicial capacity." Smith v. Hancock, 150 Ga. App. 80, 80, 256 S.E.2d 627, 628 (1979). "[T]his immunity applies even when the judge is accused of acting maliciously and corruptly. . . ."

  3. Hill v. Clakke

    714 S.E.2d 385 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 1 times
    Reversing and remanding when trial court denied statutory attorney fees based on erroneous legal theory

    (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Smith v. Hancock, 150 Ga. App. 80, 81 ( 256 S.E.2d 627) (1979). Judicial immunity is foreclosed in only two circumstances.

  4. Maddox v. Prescott

    214 Ga. App. 810 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 8 times
    Holding that probate judge was entitled to judicial immunity in guardian's action claiming judge improperly approved earlier settlement agreement

    "The Supreme Court of the United States in discussing the rationale for judicial immunity has observed `(t)his immunity applies even when the judge is accused of acting maliciously and corruptly, and it "is not for the protection or benefit of a malicious or corrupt judge, but for the benefit of the public, whose interest it is that the judges should be at liberty to exercise their functions with independence and without fear of consequences."' Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 554 ( 87 SC 1213, 18 L.Ed.2d 288) (1967)." Smith v. Hancock, 150 Ga. App. 80 ( 256 S.E.2d 627). In the case sub judice, all of the allegations asserted against Judge Prescott by Ms. Maddox were acts or omissions performed while he was acting within his authority and in his capacity as Judge of the Probate Court of Troup County, Georgia. Moreover, Ms. Maddox failed to submit any evidence supporting the claims in her complaint and affidavit. Evans v. City of Atlanta, 199 Ga. App. 878 (2) ( 406 S.E.2d 530).

  5. Mosier v. State Bd. of Pardons c

    213 Ga. App. 545 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 12 times
    Dismissing state law claims against prosecutors "who were sued in their individual capacities"

    " (Citations, punctuation and emphasis omitted.) Robbins v. Lanier, 198 Ga. App. 592, 593 ( 402 S.E.2d 342) (1991); Smith v. Hancock, 150 Ga. App. 80 ( 256 S.E.2d 627) (1979); Holsey v. Hind, 189 Ga. App. 656 ( 377 S.E.2d 200) (1988). In Allen v. Thompson, 815 F.2d 1433 (11th Cir. 1987), the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals considered a similar claim in which a prisoner sued the U.S. Attorney alleging that he maliciously wrote a false letter to the Bureau of Prisons and the Parole Commission.

  6. Robbins v. Lanier

    198 Ga. App. 592 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 7 times

    `Therefore, a district attorney is protected by the same immunity in civil cases that is applicable to judges, provided that his acts are within the scope of his jurisdiction.' Smith v. Hancock, 150 Ga. App. 80, 81 ( 256 S.E.2d 627) (1979). (Emphasis supplied.)

  7. Chamberlain v. Thompson

    302 S.E.2d 721 (Ga. Ct. App. 1983)   Cited 3 times

    Judges are immune from liability in civil actions for acts performed in their judicial capacity. Lamb v. Sims, 153 Ga. App. 556 ( 265 S.E.2d 879) (1980); Smith v. Hancock, 150 Ga. App. 80 ( 256 S.E.2d 627) (1979). "A judge will not be deprived of immunity because the action he took was in error, was done maliciously, or was in excess of his authority; rather, he will be subject to liability only when he has acted in the `clear absence of all jurisdiction.' [Cit.

  8. Lamb v. Sims

    265 S.E.2d 879 (Ga. Ct. App. 1980)   Cited 4 times

    This is true even if Sims acted maliciously. Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 554 ( 87 SC 1213, 18 L.Ed.2d 288) (1967); Smith v. Hancock, 150 Ga. App. 80 ( 256 S.E.2d 627) (1979). Finally, we note that the trial judge is presumed to have performed his official duty and not to have exceeded his authority, Steele v. Steele, 203 Ga. 505, 508 ( 46 S.E.2d 924) (1948), and that he did so in a lawful manner, Williams v. State, 126 Ga. App. 302, 305 ( 190 S.E.2d 807) (1972).

  9. Mullinax v. McElhenney

    817 F.2d 711 (11th Cir. 1987)   Cited 319 times
    Holding that the prosecutorial function includes "[o]ffering a witness immunity in exchange for his testimony"

    Similarly, under Georgia law, a district attorney is entitled to absolute immunity for acts done within the scope of his jurisdiction. Smith v. Hancock, 150 Ga. App. 80, 256 S.E.2d 627, 628 (1979). The initiation and prosecution of criminal suits is within the jurisdiction of a district attorney.

  10. Rodriguez v. Brown

    CIVIL ACTION FILE NO. 1:13-CV-03633-RWS (N.D. Ga. Jun. 20, 2014)   Cited 2 times

    Under Georgia law, prosecutors acting within the scope of their jurisdiction are immune from civil suits arising from the performance of their duties. Smith v. Hancock, 256 S.E.2d 627, 628 (Ga. Ct. App. 1979). Prosecutors engaged in quasi-judicial functions enjoy absolute immunity, but when engaged in administrative or investigative functions, prosecutors only enjoy a qualified privilege.