F.2d 652, 655 (1st Cir. 1974.) The individual quorum court members also contend that they are totally immune from liability for money damages due to their status as justices of the peace. The plaintiffs charge the members of the quorum court with failure to provide a jail attendant. This type of omission, which constitutes the basis for plaintiffs’ complaints does not relate to any judicial function of the justices of the peace, but instead relates to their activities as members of a county legislative body. The degree of immunity available to the members of the quorum court will therefore be determined as analogous to county supervisors, instead of as justices of the peace performing judicial functions. See Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 553-554, 87 S.Ct. 1213, 18 L.Ed.2d 288 (1966) (<HOLDING>) and Ex parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 339, 25 L.Ed.
holding that the common law principle of absolute judicial immunity for judicial acts has neither been abrogated nor been modified in maryland emphasis added recognizing that absolute judicial immunity is not grounded in any special esteem for those who perform judicial functions and certainly not from a desire to shield abuses of office but because any lesser degree of immunity could impair the judicial process itself recognizing judicial immunity for acts committed within their judicial jurisdiction holding that judges have immunity from suit for judicial acts holding order of contempt sentence without statutory opportunity for appeal was in error but nevertheless involved a judicial act subject to judicial immunity