Action v. Gannon, 450 F.2d 1227 (8th Cir. 1971) (en banc) (free
exercise of religion);
Richardson v. Miller, 446 F.2d 1247 (3d Cir. 1971) (freedom of
expression).
Gibbs v 383 U.S. @ 727, 86 S.Ct. @ 1139 40,
Sullivan v. Boettchcer & Co. 714 F.Supp 1132, 1133-3
Singer v Wadman 595 F.Supp 188, (D. Utah 1982), Aff'd 745 F.2d 606
(10th Cir 1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1028 (1985).(conspiracy 631
(D. Cal. 1984) (allegations of Consiracy must be supported by
material ...
With respect to allegations that an official act of a defendant
judge was the product of a corrupt conspiracy involving the bribery
of the judge, private parties who corruptly conspire with a judge
in connection with such conduct are acting under color of law, for
purposes of 42 USCS @ 1983; it is of no consequence in this respect
that the judge himself is immune from damages liability, for (1)
immunity does not change the character of the judge's action or
that of the judge's alleged coconspirators, and (2) the judge's
immunity is dependent upon the challenged conduct being an official
judicial act within the judge's statutory jurisdiction, broadly
construed.
National Collegiate Athletic Asso. v Tarkanian (1988, US) 102 L Ed
2d 469, 109 S Ct 454.
Judicial immunity from suits for money damages can be overcome
in only two sets of circumstances, one of which is that judge is
not immune for nonjudicial actions, that is, for actions not taken
in judge's judicial capacity; judge will not be deprived of immun-ity because action that judge took was in error or in excess of au-thority; accordingly, relevant inquiry is into nature and function
of act, not act itself--that is, relevant inquiry is to look to
particular act's relation to general function normally performed by
judge; it is nature of act performed, not identity of actor who
performed it, that informs court's analysis of judicial immunity.
Mireles v Waco (1991, US) 116 L Ed 2d 9, 112 S Ct 286.
PAGE 8 55 L. Ed. 2d 850, *4
With respect to allegations that an official act of a defendant
judge was the product of a corrupt conspiracy involving the bribery
of the judge, private parties who corruptly conspire with a judge
in connection with such conduct are acting under color of law, for
purposes of 42 USCS @ 1983; it is of no consequence in this respect
that the judge himself is immune from damages liability, for (1)
immunity does not change the character of the judge's action or
that of the judge's alleged coconspirators, and (2) the judge's
immunity is dependent upon the challenged conduct being an official
judicial act within the judge's statutory jurisdiction, broadly
construed.
National Collegiate Athletic Asso. v Tarkanian (1988, US) 102 L Ed