Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
If a judge does not recuse themselves when they should have known to do so, they may be subject to sanctions, which vary by jurisdiction. Depending on the jurisdiction, if an appellate court finds a judgment to have been made when the judge in question should have been recused, it may set aside the judgment and return the case for retrial.
In declining to step aside from two high-profile Supreme Court cases, Justice Samuel Alito on Wednesday provided a rare window on the opaque process by which justices decide to step aside from cases.
The court issued a 14-page document that included five canons of conduct on issues such as when justices should recuse themselves and what kind of outside activities they can engage in.
The code says in part that a justice should recuse themselves “in a proceeding in which the Justice’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, that is, where an unbiased and reasonable ...
Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires judges to recuse themselves not only when actual bias has been demonstrated or when the judge has an economic interest in the outcome of the case but also when "extreme facts" create a "probability of bias."
Judicial restraint is a judicial interpretation that recommends favoring the status quo in judicial activities and is the opposite of judicial activism.Aspects of judicial restraint include the principle of stare decisis (that new decisions should be consistent with previous decisions); a conservative approach to standing and a reluctance to grant certiorari; [1] and a tendency to deliver ...
The letter also highlighted how the Court’s new code of conduct calls for Justices to recuse themselves if their spouse has “interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the ...
Following the verdict, Harman Mining's owner, Hugh Caperton, appealed the case to the United States Supreme Court, which ruled in June 2009 that elected judges must recuse themselves from cases where exceptionally large campaign contributions from interested parties create the appearance of bias, and remanded the case to the West Virginia ...