of jurisdiction and would not be immune from liability for his action; on the other hand, if a judge of a criminal court should convict a defendant of a nonexistent crime, he would merely be acting in excess of his jurisdiction and would be immune. Stump, 435 U.S. at 357 n. 7, 98 S.Ct. at 1105 n. 7 (citing Bradley, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) at 352, 20 L.Ed. 646). A clear absence of all jurisdiction means a clear lack of all subject matter jurisdiction. Bradley, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) at 351-52. See also Rankin v. Howard, 633 F.2d 844, 848-49 (9th Cir.1980) (“a judge who acts in the clear and complete absence of personal jurisdiction loses his judicial immunity”), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 939, 101 S.Ct. 2020, 68 L.Ed.2d 326 (1981); O’Neil v. City of Lake Oswego, 642 F.2d 367, 369 (9th Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>). The bankruptcy judges clearly had subject
holding that personal jurisdiction is not required to make an outofstate parent a party to custody action where the state court has subject matter jurisdiction under the uniform child custody jurisdiction act holding that a judge who misinterpreted a statute and erroneously exercised jurisdiction did not act in the clear absence of all jurisdiction holding that a defendant that invokes the jurisdiction of a court as a plaintiff waives its personal jurisdiction defense in all actions related to the claim for which it invoked the courts jurisdiction holding that a judge who convicted defendant for contempt an act within the courts jurisdiction but without the affidavit required by statute to confer jurisdiction over the offense charged was still entitled to immunity his act was merely in excess of his jurisdiction holding that the clause at issue granted jurisdiction but not exclusive jurisdiction