Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Zsolt Petko and Zsuzsanna Adam v. Carelton Courtyard
Citation: Not availableDocket: 01-17-00918-CV
Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; December 19, 2018; Texas; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Appellants Zsolt Petko and Zsuzsanna Adam filed a second pro se "Motion to Recuse Judges" concerning the panel justices who issued a prior order. According to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 16.3, a challenged justice must either recuse themselves or have the matter certified to the entire court for a majority decision. In this instance, the challenged justices considered the Motion in chambers and found no grounds for recusal, subsequently certifying the matter to the remaining en banc court. The court followed the procedural requirements outlined in Rule 16.3, deliberating and voting on the Motion to Recuse for each challenged justice without their participation. The Motion was ultimately denied for Justices Jennings, Keyes, and Higley, with each order specifying the denial of their recusal requests. The court consisted of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Bland, Massengale, Brown, Lloyd, and Caughey. The final ruling rejected the appellants' request for recusal of all three justices.