Not exact matches
UPDATE: Ben Smith
has the ruling in question, and Gawker reminds us of the
financial interest the
judge who issued it
has in a GOP consulting firm.
Under the Conservatives, senior Whitehall officials
would be
judged on their
financial performance, and all senior civil servants
would have a fiduciary responsibility to act in the
interest of the taxpayer.
The Supreme Court issued a landmark 5 - 4 decision today in Caperton v. Massey Coal Co., holding that due process requires a state
judge to recuse himself from a case involving the
financial interests of a party who
has made substantial donations to the
judge's campaign for the bench.
These include proceedings in which the
judge has a personal bias or prejudice against a party, when the
judge has served as an attorney or witness in the case or any stage of it, and when the
judge or a member of the
judge's immediate family
has a
financial interest in the case.
In accordance with the code of judicial ethics,
judges frequently recuse themselves from cases where they
have a
financial interest that might create even an appearance of impartiality — for example where a
judge holds stock in a litigant's company.
* Following up on an older story, the Fifth Circuit
has withdrawn a ruling made in 2007 upon revelations that one of the
judges involved
had a
financial interest in one of the parties.
All these fundamental principles
would be violated by the vague obligation not to apply Articles 160 (3) and 161 (2) in so far as Italian
judges found that the «national rule prevents the imposition of effective and dissuasive penalties in a significant number of cases of serious fraud affecting the
financial interests of the European Union» (para 58; emphasis added).
The nice aspect of this published decision, with respect to 1021.5 jurisprudence, is that it held a claimant seeking no monetary award could still be held to
have an overriding
financial interest and, separately, that even an «indirect»
financial interest — in this case, competitive survival — certainly allowed trial
judges to consider such an
interest (gauging whether it was real or speculative in nature).
(4) Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this Canon, if a
judge would be disqualified because of a
financial interest in a party (other than an
interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome), disqualification is not required if the
judge (or the
judge's spouse or minor child) divests the
interest that provides the grounds for disqualification.
(c) the
judge knows that the
judge, individually or as a fiduciary, or the
judge's spouse or minor child residing in the
judge's household,
has a
financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other
interest that could be affected substantially by the outcome of the proceeding;
My view actually aligns with people who I believe are much more learned than most in this industry — the lawyers and
judges who make money off of salespersons like yourself for
having convinced others that it's in their best
interests to hire you to represent them and the opposing side in the same
financial arrangement!