Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

jurisdictionlitigationnegligencesummary judgmentcorporationdivorcedue process

defendantjurisdictionbankruptcydivorceappellant

Related Cases

New Alaska Development Corp. v. Guetschow, 869 F.2d 1298

Facts

In November 1982, J. Glen Cassity's wife filed for divorce in Alaska Superior Court. The presiding judge appointed Bernd C. Guetschow as the receiver to manage Cassity's business affairs, including New Alaska Development Corporation. Cassity and New Alaska later initiated litigation against Guetschow and Judge Moody, alleging wrongful conduct and erroneous decisions during the divorce proceedings. The complaints included claims of misappropriation of funds and negligence against Guetschow.

In November 1982, appellant J. Glen Cassity's wife filed for divorce in Alaska Superior Court.

Issue

Whether Judge Moody and Guetschow were immune from suit and whether Guetschow's conduct violated § 1983.

The issues in this case are clouded by a somewhat complicated procedural background.

Rule

Judges are entitled to absolute immunity from suit for actions taken within their jurisdiction, and court-appointed receivers are generally afforded the same immunity.

A defendant judge is immune from suit when: at the time he took the challenged action he had jurisdiction over the subject matter before him….

Analysis

The court found that Judge Moody acted within his jurisdiction when he appointed Guetschow as receiver, thus granting him absolute immunity. The court also determined that Guetschow's actions, while potentially wrongful, did not rise to the level of violating constitutional rights under § 1983, as the allegations did not demonstrate a deprivation of property without due process.

The bankruptcy court entered a final distribution of New Alaska's estate on October 28, 1985.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint against Judge Moody and the summary judgment in favor of Guetschow, concluding that both were protected by absolute immunity.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part.

Who won?

Judge Moody and Bernd C. Guetschow prevailed in the case because the court found them to be immune from the claims brought against them.

The district court dismissed appellants' complaint against Moody because it found Moody to be entitled to absolute judicial immunity.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Freeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas Co. v. F.E.R.C., 962 F.2d 45, 295 U.S.App.D.C. 236

United States v. Davis, 588 U.S. 445, 139 S.Ct. 2319, 204 L.Ed.2d 757, 19 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5908, 2019 Daily Journal D.A.R. 5650, 27 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 1031

Wellmore Coal Corp. v. Harman Mining Corp., 264 Va. 279, 568 S.E.2d 671

SMI Industries Canada Ltd. v. Caelter Industries, Inc., 586 F.Supp. 808, 223 U.S.P.Q. 742

Shelton v. Shelton, 119 Nev. 492, 78 P.3d 507