# Pat S. Holloway v. Judge Dee Brown Walker, Judge Dee Brown Walker

> Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · July 18, 1985 · 765 F.2d 517

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9473645

## Case

- **Full name:** Pat S. HOLLOWAY, Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Judge Dee Brown WALKER, Et Al., Defendants, Judge Dee Brown Walker, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- **Decided:** July 18, 1985
- **Citations:** 765 F.2d 517; 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 20349
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Johnson
- **Judges:** Johnson, Jolly, Hill
- **Cited by:** 113 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9473645

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that “[¡judicial immunity does not extend to acts committed with a clear absence of all jurisdiction,” but “where the alleged harm, though resulting from a bribe or conspiracy, was inflicted by acts to which absolute immunity would apply, the complaint is insufficient …
- concluding that where state officials' acts were not "committed in the clear absence of all jurisdiction," case did not fall into ultra vires exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity, and dismissing all pendent state law claims including those for equitable, declaratory and le…
- concluding that a judge who allegedly seized control of an oil company pursuant to a bribe was entitled to judicial immunity
- holding that state district judges, not being local officials, enjoy Eleventh Amendment immunity

## Opinion text

JOHNSON, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. Under the current procedural posture of the instant case, the plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged acts committed after the Texas Court of Appeals’ mandamus order which were in the “clear absence of all jurisdiction.” See Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 357 , 98 S.Ct. 1099, 1105 , 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978). Accordingly, I would affirm the district court’s interlocutory decision that plaintiffs’ cause of action against Judge Walker should not be dismissed on immunity grounds.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9473645. Public record. Not legal advice.