Moncelle v. McDade

Plaintiff alleged that panel of 3 appellate justices who decided the appeal affirming dismissal of her suit alleging wrongful death of her husband deliberately misstated contents of record to provide support for their decision, which they prejudged without regard to facts of case. Defendant justices resolved the controversy presented to them in their judicial capacity, by the judicial act of entering a Rule 23 order. Defendant justices are entitled to judicial immunity against any liability arising from entry of the Rule 23 Order, regardless of its contents or their motives in entering it. (HUDSON and ZENOFF, concurring.)