purpose of absolute immunity in Michigan

2023“The purpose of absolute immunity under the judicial proceedings privilege, as it applies to attorneys, is to promote the public policy ‘of securing to attorneys as officers of the court the utmost freedom in their efforts to secure justice for their clients.’ ” Oesterle v Wallace, 272 Mich App 260, 265 ; 725 NW2d 470 (2006), quoting 3 Restatement Torts, 2d, § 586, comment a, p 247.

2016Id. at 265 .

2025Grahovac v Munising Twp, 263 Mich App 589, 595 ; 689 NW2d 498 (2004).

2025Grahovac v Munising Twp, 263 Mich App 589, 595 ; 689 NW2d 498 (2004).

2024The purpose of absolute privilege is “to allow public officials to speak freely in the course of their official duties without fear of legal repercussions.” Id. at 621 .

2024The privilege, however, “is narrow and applies only to communications regarding matters of public concern.” Id.

2023“The purpose of absolute immunity under the judicial proceedings privilege, as it applies to attorneys, is to promote the public policy ‘of securing to attorneys as officers of the court the utmost freedom in their efforts to secure justice for their clients.’ ” Oesterle v Wallace, 272 Mich App 260, 265 ; 725 NW2d 470 (2006), quoting 3 Restatement Torts, 2d, § 586, comment a, p 247.

2017Accordingly, judges “are not liable to civil actions for their judicial acts even when such acts are in excess of their jurisdiction, and are alleged to have been done maliciously or corruptly.” Bradley v Fisher, 80 US (13 Wall) 335, 351-352; 20 L Ed 646 (1872).

2017The purpose of absolute immunity is to “protect[] the finality of judgments and preserv[e] the judicial independence by ‘insulating judges from vexatious actions prosecuted by disgruntled litigants.’ ” Id., quoting Forrester v White, 484 US 219, 225 ; 108 S Ct 538 ; 98 L Ed 2d 555 (1988). “[T]he broad scope of the immunity . . . is ‘for the benefit of the public, whose interest it is that the judges should be at liberty to exercise their functions with 1 Serven raised unrelated claims against various other named defendants which are not at issue in this appeal. -3- independence and without fea

2017The purpose of absolute immunity is to “protect[] the finality of judgments and preserv[e] the judicial independence by ‘insulating judges from vexatious actions prosecuted by disgruntled litigants.’ ” Id., quoting Forrester v White, 484 US 219, 225 ; 108 S Ct 538 ; 98 L Ed 2d 555 (1988). “[T]he broad scope of the immunity . . . is ‘for the benefit of the public, whose interest it is that the judges should be at liberty to exercise their functions with 1 Serven raised unrelated claims against various other named defendants which are not at issue in this appeal. -3- independence and without fea

2017The purpose of absolute immunity is to “protect[] the finality of judgments and preserv[e] the judicial independence by ‘insulating judges from vexatious actions prosecuted by disgruntled litigants.’ ” Id., quoting Forrester v White, 484 US 219, 225 ; 108 S Ct 538 ; 98 L Ed 2d 555 (1988). “[T]he broad scope of the immunity . . . is ‘for the benefit of the public, whose interest it is that the judges should be at liberty to exercise their functions with 1 Serven raised unrelated claims against various other named defendants which are not at issue in this appeal. -3- independence and without fea

2017The purpose of absolute immunity is to “protect[] the finality of judgments and preserv[e] the judicial independence by ‘insulating judges from vexatious actions prosecuted by disgruntled litigants.’ ” Id., quoting Forrester v White, 484 US 219, 225 ; 108 S Ct 538 ; 98 L Ed 2d 555 (1988). “[T]he broad scope of the immunity . . . is ‘for the benefit of the public, whose interest it is that the judges should be at liberty to exercise their functions with 1 Serven raised unrelated claims against various other named defendants which are not at issue in this appeal. -3- independence and without fea

2017The purpose of absolute immunity is to “protect[] the finality of judgments and preserv[e] the judicial independence by ‘insulating judges from vexatious actions prosecuted by disgruntled litigants.’ ” Id., quoting Forrester v White, 484 US 219, 225 ; 108 S Ct 538 ; 98 L Ed 2d 555 (1988). “[T]he broad scope of the immunity . . . is ‘for the benefit of the public, whose interest it is that the judges should be at liberty to exercise their functions with 1 Serven raised unrelated claims against various other named defendants which are not at issue in this appeal. -3- independence and without fea

2006In Couch, supra at 295 , this Court stated that “[t]he judicial proceedings privilege should be liberally construed so that participants in judicial proceedings are free to express themselves without fear of retaliation.” This Court demonstrated an expansive view of the scope of the privilege by concluding that it extends to a statement in a prison misconduct report made in connection with a prison disciplinary hearing.