Narrative Opinion Summary
The court grants a Petition for Writ of Prohibition regarding a trial court's denial of a motion for recusal of the respondent judge. The court concludes that the judge must disqualify herself, regardless of the legal sufficiency of the motion under established standards. The trial court's extensive order in response to the motion placed the judge in an adversarial position, leading to her disqualification as supported by precedent cases, including Bundy v. Rudd and Gieseke v. Moriarty. The court quashes the previous order and instructs the trial court to issue an order of recusal. The decision is concurred by Justices ANSTEAD, WALDEN, and STONE.
Legal Issues Addressed
Adversarial Position Leading to Disqualificationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The trial court's response to the motion for recusal positioned the judge adversarially, necessitating her disqualification as supported by precedent cases.
Reasoning: The trial court's extensive order in response to the motion placed the judge in an adversarial position, leading to her disqualification as supported by precedent cases, including Bundy v. Rudd and Gieseke v. Moriarty.
Judicial Disqualification and Recusalsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that a judge must disqualify herself when her actions place her in an adversarial position, irrespective of the legal sufficiency of the initial motion for recusal.
Reasoning: The court concludes that the judge must disqualify herself, regardless of the legal sufficiency of the motion under established standards.
Writ of Prohibitionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court granted the Petition for Writ of Prohibition, quashing the trial court's previous order and directing an order of recusal.
Reasoning: The court grants a Petition for Writ of Prohibition regarding a trial court's denial of a motion for recusal of the respondent judge.