Opinion ID: 2541918
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Appeal to and Decision of the Court of Appeals

Text: The Appellants appealed the decision of the Franklin Circuit Court to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed. The Court of Appeals' decision was, however, at some variance with the decision of the Franklin Circuit Court. As noted, the Franklin Circuit Court had held that quasi-judicial immunity barred the defendants from being subject to suit in the Board of Claims. The Court of Appeals observed that the circuit court had cited judicial immunity as its basis for upholding the dismissal of appellants' claims. The Court of Appeals, however, held that the dismissal of the suit in the Board of Claims was required for the more fundamental reason that neither Judge Winchester nor King can be considered employees of AOC. The Court of Appeals stated that, while Horn established that the Board of Claims Act encompassed the AOC, the individual at issue in Horn was an employee of the AOC, whereas King and Judge Winchester were not. The Court of Appeals also drew a distinction between sovereign immunity and judicial immunity. The court stated that the Board of Claims Act effected a limited waiver of sovereign immunity, but that the Act did not effect any waiver of the entirely distinct concept of judicial immunity. The court concluded that because of that critical distinction, the judge and master commissioner were not subject to the jurisdiction of the Board of Claims. Lastly, the court commented that the Appellants were not without a remedy because they could pursue a civil claim against King since his criminal acts were outside the scope of his duties as master commissioner, removing any immunity that he might otherwise enjoy. This Court subsequently accepted discretionary review to determine whether the Board of Claims properly dismissed the Appellants' action for lack of jurisdiction.