Is a judge disqualified from a case against a city and its inspector after a dispute over the judge’s hurricane debris removal cost has been resolved?

Plain-English summary

A judge presided over a case against a municipality and building inspector while the judge and other property owners discussed who would pay to remove hurricane debris. The inspector initially estimated about $4,700 to remove debris from the judge’s property.

Before resolution, the judge put the circumstances on the case record. Counsel consulted their clients and reported no objection to the judge continuing. The debris was later removed at no cost to the owners, resolving the issue.

The Commission concluded that the amicable resolution and the other stated facts left no reasonable question about the judge’s impartiality. The judge was not disqualified from the pending case.

In practice

The conclusion turns on the disclosed, fully resolved dispute and the full circumstances supplied to the Commission.

Common questions

Q: Did the earlier cost dispute disqualify the judge?

A: No, given its resolution and the other submitted facts.

Q: What happened to the proposed removal charge?

A: The debris was removed at no cost to the property owners.

Q: Did the parties receive a disclosure?

A: Yes. The judge put the issue on the record; counsel then reported no objection after consulting their clients.

Background and rules framework

Canon 3C(1) governs recusal when known facts would give a reasonable basis to question impartiality. The opinion applies the tests stated in Acromag-Viking and Matter of Sheffield.

Citations and references

Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics:

• Canon 3C(1)

Cases:

• Acromag-Viking v. Blalock, 420 So. 2d 60 (Ala. 1982)
• Matter of Sheffield, 465 So. 2d 350 (Ala. 1984)

See also

• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 06-858: Household Employee Gives Cumulative Testimony
• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 05-856: Brief Prior Representation of a Victim-Witness

Source

• Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions
• Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 06-857

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

JUDICIAL INQUIRY COMMISSION
DATE ISSUED: DECEMBER 1, 2005 ADVISORY OPINION 06-857
DIS QUALIF IC A TION DUE TO
POTENTIAL DISPUTE WITH A PARTY
THAT HAS BEEN RESOLVED
ISSUE
Is a judge disqualified to hear a case because
he has been involved in a now resolved
dispute with the parties defendant? Answer:
No, not under the facts presented.
FACTS
A circuit judge has pending before him an
action in which the defendants are a
municipality and its building inspector. In
July of this year, a hurricane did considerable
damage in the area. In the wake of the storm,
the judge and other property owners were in
communication with the mayor and the
buildinginspectorconcerningwhowouldbear
the cost of removal of the hurricane debris.
The potential conflict was in who would pay
the cost, the property owners or the state,
federal or local governments. The building
inspector estimated the cost of the removal,
and a letter from the building inspector shortly
after the storm informed the judge that, at that
time, the cost of the debris removal from his
property would be about $4,700.00. During
subsequentdiscussions, propertyowners were
led to understand that matters would most
likely be resolved to the satisfaction of the
affected property owners.
Prior to the resolution of the foregoing
dispute, the judge placed the substance of the
foregoing information on the record in the
case in question, which had been pending
before him since the beginning of the year.
The attorneys discussed the matter with their
clients and stated on the record that theyhad no
objection to the judge continuing to preside in
the case. Shortly thereafter, the debris was
removed at no cost to the property owners and
all matters concerning this issue were resolved.
DISCUSSION
Under Canon 3C(1), recusal is required when
“facts are shown which make it reasonable for
members of the public or a party, or counsel
opposed to question the impartiality of the
judge.” Acromag-Vikingv.Blalock,420So.2d
60, 61 (Ala. 1982). Specifically, the test under
Canon 3C(1) is: “Would a person of ordinary
prudence in the judge’s position knowing all of
the facts known to the judge find that there is a
reasonable basis for questioning the judge’s
impartiality?” Matter of Sheffield, 465 So. 2d
350, 356 (Ala. 1984).
The dispute between the judge and the parties
defendant has been amicably resolved. The
Commission is of the opinion that, under all the
associated facts presented, there is no
reasonable question as to the judge’s
impartiality. Thus, the judgeis not disqualified
to hear the subject case.
REFERENCES
Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics, Canon
3C(1).
Acromag-Vikingv.Blalock,420So.2d60(Ala.
1982).
Matter of Sheffield, 465 So. 2d 350 (Ala.
1984).
ADVISORY OPINION 03-811
PAGE 3
This opinion is advisory only and is based on
the specific facts and questions submitted by
the judge who requested the opinion pursuant
to Rule 17 of the Rules of Procedure of the
Judicial Inquiry Commission. For further
information, you may contact the Judicial
Inquiry Commission, P. O. Box 303400,
Montgomery, Alabama 36130-3400; tel.:
(334)242-4089; fax: (334)353-4043;E-mail:
[email protected].