Did the judge’s involvement in a related case require recusal from the pending case in Opinion 95-567?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1995. Ask about yours and see what the current rules of professional conduct in your state say for your facts, with citations.
Plain-English summary
A party sought disqualification in a pending case based on the judge’s involvement in another, related case. The request reported no allegation of personal bias and framed the motion under Canon 3C(l)’s appearance standard.
After reviewing the facts submitted, the Commission concludes that disqualification is not required under those circumstances. The published opinion gives no further account of the related case or explanation of why the standard was not met.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1995, after the Alabama Supreme Court's 1975 adoption of the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics. Subsequent amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context and verify the current Canons and linked opinion before relying on its conclusions.
Common questions
Q: Did the Commission require the judge to leave the pending case?
A: No. It found no disqualification on the facts submitted.
Q: Did the opinion find personal bias?
A: The request reported no allegation of personal bias; the Commission did not make a separate finding of bias.
Background and rules framework
The opinion quotes Canon 3C(l)’s general impartiality standard and its provision concerning personal bias or knowledge of disputed facts. It does not discuss how the quoted rule applies beyond its conclusion.
Citations and references
Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics:
- Canon 3C(l).
See also
- AL Judicial Ethics Op. 95-574: Litigant Accusations
- AL Judicial Ethics Op. 95-580: Parallel Fraud Suit
Source
- Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions
- Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 95-567
- Canon history: Alabama JIC, Canons of Judicial Ethics
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
95-567
Judicial Inquiry Commission
800 SOUTH MCDONOUGH STREET
SUITE 201
MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36104
June 2, 1995
This is in response to your request for an advisory opinion from the Judicial Inquiry Commission. Your question is whether you should disqualify yourself under the following facts: A Motion to Disqualify has been filed in your court in the pending case styled Sonny Hornsby vs. Jeff Sessions, CV-95-262. There have been no allegations of any personal bias on your part. The ground for disqualification as set out in counsels’ brief and in testimony in court during a hearing on the matter is the appearance of impropriety standard enunciated in Canon 3C(l). The alleged appearance of impropriety stems from your involvement in the related case of Odom vs. Bennett, CV-94- 2434. Your question is governed by Canon 3C(l), Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics: (1) A judge should disqualify himself in a proceeding in which his disqualification is required by law or his impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances where: (a) He has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding; ... After reviewing the facts contained in your request, it is the opinion of this Commission that your disqualification is not required under these circumstances.
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 1995. Ezel checks the current rules of professional conduct in your state against your situation and cites the rules it relies on.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace