Sentences with phrase «judicial recusal»
"Judicial recusal" means when a judge or justice decides to excuse themselves from a legal case because of a potential conflict of interest or a bias that may affect their ability to be impartial and fair. Full definition
According to Justice Roggensack, to impose judicial recusal rules in such circumstances would «nullify the constitutional vote of the contributor, or the lawful choice of the appointer, or chill the lawful speech of those who make independent communications during the course of a campaign for judicial office.»
wisciviljusticecouncil.org
The first ruling involved competing petitions brought by a number of groups requesting the Court amend the Wisconsin Code of Judicial Conduct pertaining to the issue of judicial recusal.
I mentioned last month the raft of legislation filed in the Wisconsin Assembly dealing with judicial recusal, including proposals to require recusal for certain campaign contributions as well as giving the supreme court the ability to force a justice off a case.
[16] Therefore, Justice Roggensack urged the Special Committee to consider the rules [17] adopted by the Wisconsin Supreme Court addressing judicial recusal.
SB 440 Provides rebuttable presumption of judicial recusal where party, attorney, or law firm in case gave 25 % of all contributions to judge's campaign.
Although most states have rules governing judicial recusal related to campaign contributions, few formal ethical rules govern lawyers making those contributions.
This is the first major case involving judicial recusal to reach the Supreme Court since Caperton v. Massey in 2009.
However, in 2010, Wisconsin Supreme Court had changed the state's recusal rules to exclude campaign contributions and independent expenditures as sole bases for judicial recusal.
In 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down the seminal opinion regarding judicial recusal, Caperton v. Massey.
Litigants can double - check judicial recusals (financial conflicts are missed in a small number of cases: CPI report here, AP story here, apparently no CA3 judges goofed Update: actually, CPI identified a 2010 financial conflict involving Judge Roth; Bruce Greenberg's New Jersey Appellate Law blog reports that the parties were notified and did not respond).
We elect judges in Wisconsin; therefore, judicial recusal rules have the potential to impact the effectiveness of citizens» votes cast for judges.
Also, it seems Canada could use a monograph on judicial recusal, or perhaps recusal law in both the courts and administrative tribunals.
[7] Dissatisfied with the majority's decision, the dissent urged the Legislature to «engage in further study of judicial recusal.»
What, if anything, the Legislature decides to do with the judicial recusal issue may ultimately affect the next Wisconsin Supreme Court election in April 2011.
The same three Justices [20] that dissented to the judicial recusal rule changes rejected the Panel's recommendation to grant Justice Gableman's summary judgment motion and to dismiss the case.
The judicial recusal issue gained national prominence last year when the Supreme Court of the United States issued its 5 - 4 decision, Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. [2] Caperton involved an extreme set of facts.
Instead, judicial recusal is about things that create the appearance of bias than it is about actual bias.
Judicial recusal in appropriate circumstances is essential to ensuring a judiciary that is qualified and impartial and that inspires public trust...