Case Summaries

Judges & Judiciary

[06/30] ORANGE COUNTY EMPLOYEES ASS'N, INC. v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY
The Court denied plaintiff's petition for writ of mandate to disclose records relating to reimbursement of travel expenses for judges and management employees of the Court pursuant to the California Public Records Act, because the Act did not apply to the requested disclosure.

[06/28] US v. PARKER
Evidence seized under a warrant issued by a trial commissioner who was also an administrative assistant at the county jail was properly excluded, because the commissioner was not a neutral and detached party.

[06/08] PEOPLE v. PESCADOR
A judge, substituted into a trial following three days of testimony, can fairly and competently preside without first reading all prior testimony, as long as he familiarized himself with pertinent portions of the record before making specific rulings.

[05/27] IN RE MCCARTHY
In a matter arises out a continuing fight over the ownership and control of The Salt Lake Tribune, petitioner's requests for writs of mandamus and prohibition are denied because they have failed to satisfy their burden that their right to additional disclosure is clear and indisputable.

[05/24] JOHNSON v. CARROLL
Without a showing of actual bias by the state trial judge, petitioner's writ of habeus corpus must be dismissed pursuant to the guidelines of the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.

[05/11] HOFFMAN v. CATERPILLAR, INC.
Jury verdict for defendant-employer is affirmed in this ADA employment discrimination case.

[05/05] IN RE COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT
Routine personnel decisions involving court employees are the kind of administrative function that does not directly implicate the "effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts." Petition for review of the dismissal of a judicial misconduct complaint is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

[03/16] REPUBLICAN PARTY OF MINNESOTA v. WHITE
Judgment must be entered for plaintiffs on their claim that the "announce" clause of Canon 5 of the Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct violated their First Amendment rights. District court should enter judgment in favor of defendants on plaintiffs' personal solicitation clause claim, and reconsider its ruling on their claims regarding the restriction of partisan activities.

[03/03] JONES v. LUEBBERS
Missouri Supreme Court reasonably determined that the facts alleged did not show that the trial judge was prejudiced or biased against the accused in this death penalty matter. No clearly established precedent would have required the judge to recuse himself from his own disqualification hearing.

[03/02] LITTLE ROCK SCH. DIST. v. ARMSTRONG
District court judge's representation of another judge at a much earlier stage of the case and on far different issues did not involve the same "matter in controversy" for purposes of 28 U.S.C. section 455(b)(2); thus he did not err in declining to recuse himself. The finding of substantial compliance with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan was not erroneous, and the grant of partial unitary status is affirmed.

[02/24] SELKRIDGE v. UNITED OF OMAHA LIFE INS. CO.
A trial judge cannot, without explanation, recuse himself in a substantial number of cases and, at substantially the same time, decline to recuse himself in another group of cases that appears indistinguishable for purposes of recusal. Since plenary review of the record shows that the res judicata and FRCP rule 60(b) issues were correctly decided as a matter of law, however, defendant is fairly entitled to its judgments.

[01/30] BERNARD v. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
A political motive does not deprive prosecutors of absolute immunity from suit for authorized decisions made in the performance of their function as advocates; accordingly, plaintiffs' claims of advocative misconduct must be dismissed. Claims of investigative misconduct are not shielded by absolute immunity; whether these would survive dismissal is for the district court to determine.

[01/21] DE LEON v. AGUILAR
The law provides an immediate remedy to enforce a right to recuse a biased trial judge; when a recusal motion is timely filed, Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 18a affords a trial judge no discretion, he must either recuse himself or refer the motion for another judge to decide. Here, the judge's bias has been established as a matter of law.

[01/09] IN RE KENSINGTON INT'L LTD.
Due to temporal exigencies, discovery is to be expedited and district court judge must soon rule on recusal motions seeking to disqualify him from any further participation in five asbestos-related bankruptcy proceedings.

[01/08] CHRISTIAN COALITION OF ALABAMA v. COLE
Defendants cannot reasonably be expected to issue another advisory opinion enforcing certain Canons of Judicial Ethics that the US Supreme Court recently found to violate the First Amendment. The case is therefore moot.

[01/08] CHRISTIAN COALITION OF ALABAMA v. COLE
Defendants cannot reasonably be expected to issue another advisory opinion enforcing certain Canons of Judicial Ethics that the US Supreme Court recently found to violate the First Amendment. The case is therefore moot.

[12/09] SULZER TEXTIL A.G. v. PICANOL N.V.
In patent cases in which claim construction rulings on disputed claim terms are made prior to trial and followed by the parties during the course of the trial, it is the duty of trial courts to inform jurors both of the court's claim construction rulings on all disputed claim terms and of the jury's obligation to adopt and apply the court's determined meanings of disputed claim terms in the jury's deliberations of the facts.

[12/09] IN RE ASHLEY M.
The juvenile court exceeded its authority by directing that a particular social worker be assigned to the case, over the objection of the social worker's employer.

[12/09] ROBINSON v. SAPPINGTON
In a Title VII hostile work environment, sexual harassment and constructive discharge case, summary judgment for defendants is reversed and remanded with respect to claims against a judge, in his official capacity as supervisor, and against the employer county.

[12/09] SPARGO v. NEW YORK STATE COMM'N ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT
District court judgment declaring various provisions of the New York Rules Governing Judicial Conduct facially unconstitutional and permanently enjoining defendants from enforcing the provisions, is vacated where Younger abstention applies to all of plaintiffs' claims.

Back to Main