Under which circumstance is a judge liable for damages resulting from judicial acts?

A judge generally enjoys absolute immunity from liability for damages related to judicial acts performed within their jurisdiction. This immunity is grounded in the principle that judges must be able to make decisions without the fear of personal repercussions, thus ensuring the independence of the judiciary.

However, when a judge acts outside of their jurisdiction, they can indeed be held liable for their actions. This is because acting outside of jurisdictional bounds can represent an abuse of power or authority, essentially straying from the lawful role of a judge. If a judge exceeds their jurisdiction, individuals affected by those actions may seek damages, as the immunity that normally protects judges does not apply in these circumstances. Therefore, the liability arises specifically because the judge's actions were beyond their lawful authority.

In terms of the other options, it is incorrect to state that a judge is never liable, as there are scenarios, like acting outside their jurisdiction, where liability can occur. The idea that liability only arises from willful misconduct is also not correct, as negligence or violation of jurisdiction can lead to liability as well. Lastly, the mere receipt of a complaint does not equate to liability; it is the nature of the judge's actions that ultimately matters when considering legal repercussions.