Narrative Opinion Summary
The Supreme Court of Wisconsin deliberated on a motion filed by the Attorney General seeking to vacate a previous decision due to alleged disqualification of Justice William A. Bablitch. The allegation was based on Justice Bablitch receiving discounted merchandise from a party involved in the case. The court examined its jurisdiction post-remittitur to entertain such motions and determined that jurisdiction persists if disqualification renders a judgment void. Upon review, the court found no statutory basis for Justice Bablitch's disqualification under sec. 757.19(2), Stats., which outlines specific, objective criteria for mandatory disqualification. The statute requires a judge’s subjective assessment of impartiality, which Justice Bablitch affirmed after an investigation cleared him of misconduct. The court upheld its initial decision, emphasizing that ethical considerations, while important, do not alter statutory disqualification standards. The motion to vacate was denied, and the court expressed concern over the baseless nature of the allegations, reinforcing the necessity to protect judicial integrity. Justices Abrahamson and Bablitch abstained from the decision.
Legal Issues Addressed
Judicial Disqualification under Sec. 757.19(2), Stats.subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court assessed whether Justice Bablitch's relationship with a litigant required disqualification under the statute, finding that none of the prescribed conditions for mandatory disqualification were met.
Reasoning: The court found this argument without merit, stating that the statute outlining mandatory disqualification (sec. 757.19(2), Stats.) specifies seven objective situations requiring disqualification, none of which applied to Justice Bablitch.
Judicial Ethics and Disqualificationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court considered ethical standards alongside statutory disqualification but clarified that ethics do not dictate legal disqualification requirements.
Reasoning: The Code governs ethical conduct but does not determine legal qualifications for judges, allowing for disciplinary action for conduct that does not necessitate disqualification under the statute.
Jurisdiction Post-Remittitursubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court maintained jurisdiction to review claims of judicial disqualification even after remittitur, as such claims can render a judgment void.
Reasoning: The court clarified that, despite the remittitur on April 5, 1989, jurisdiction could be retained if a justice was disqualified by law, as such a disqualification renders the judgment void.
Objective and Subjective Standards for Judicial Disqualificationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court distinguished between the objective criteria for disqualification and the subjective assessment required of judges under the disqualification statute.
Reasoning: Objective determinations apply to subsections (b) through (f) regarding disqualification. However, subsection (g) under sec. 757.19(2), Stats., focuses on a judge's subjective assessment of their impartiality.
Void Judgments and Judicial Disqualificationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court emphasized that judgments rendered by a disqualified judge are void, necessitating reargument of the case.
Reasoning: The court ruled that any judgment rendered by a disqualified judge is void (coram non judice).