magnitude error in Louisiana

2016If the-violation is likely to recur, removal is appropriate.” Matter of Field, 281 Ore.[Or.] 623, 635, 576 P.2d 348, 354 (1978); see also In re Baber, 847 S.W.2d 800, 803 (Mo.1993)(“[W]hen incompetency is alleged the court’s task is to determine whether the conduct at issue establishes that the respondent lacks the requisite ability,' knowledge, judgment, or diligence to consistently and capably discharge the duties of office he or she holds.”).

2016If the violation is likely to recur, removal is appropriate.” Matter of Field, 281 Ore. 623, 635 , 576 P.2d 348, 354 (1978); see also In re Baber, 847 S.W.2d 800, 803 (Mo. 1993)(“[W]hen incompetency is alleged the court's task is to determine whether the conduct at issue establishes that the respondent lacks the requisite ability, knowledge, judgment, or diligence to consistently and capably discharge the duties of office he or she holds.”).

2016If the-violation is likely to recur, removal is appropriate.” Matter of Field, 281 Ore.[Or.] 623, 635, 576 P.2d 348, 354 (1978); see also In re Baber, 847 S.W.2d 800, 803 (Mo.1993)(“[W]hen incompetency is alleged the court’s task is to determine whether the conduct at issue establishes that the respondent lacks the requisite ability,' knowledge, judgment, or diligence to consistently and capably discharge the duties of office he or she holds.”).

2016If the violation is likely to recur, removal is appropriate.” Matter of Field, 281 Ore. 623, 635 , 576 P.2d 348, 354 (1978); see also In re Baber, 847 S.W.2d 800, 803 (Mo. 1993)(“[W]hen incompetency is alleged the court's task is to determine whether the conduct at issue establishes that the respondent lacks the requisite ability, knowledge, judgment, or diligence to consistently and capably discharge the duties of office he or she holds.”).

2026App. 4 Cir. 8/21/25), 419 So.3d 829 , 832 (quoting Alonso v. Admin.

2026App. 4 Cir. 8/21/25), 419 So.3d 829, 832 (quoting Alonso v. Admin.

2025App. 1 Cir. 10/28/16), 213 So.3d 18, 22 (quotations omitted). 3 “Once a judgment becomes final and definitive and acquires the authority of the thing adjudged, no court has jurisdiction, in the sense of power and authority, to modify, revise or reverse the judgment, regardless of the magnitude of the error in the final judgment.” Alonso v. Admin.

2014Indeed, the Evans Court remarked: “We presume here, as in other contexts, that courts exercise their duties in good faith.” However, “[i]f the concern is that there is no limit to the magnitude of the error that could yield an acquittal, the response is that we have long held as much.” Id. at 1078-79 (emphasis added).

2007In re: Whitaker, 463 So.2d 1291, 1303 (La.1985). | ¾⅛ recommending removal as an appropriate sanction, the Commission noted that the court in Hunter, supra, determined that Judge Sharon Hunter failed to perform her administrative duties and supervise her staff, regardless of whether her failure resulted from • inexperience, negligence, pride, or ineptitude: Especially in cases where incompetence is at issue, the proper focus in deciding “whether removal is the appropriate solution depends not only on the magnitude of the violation but also on the probability of the violation’s recurrence.

1978In ruling on the admissibility of defendant's inculpatory statement the trial judge relied on State v. Cotton, 341 So.2d 355, 359 (La.1977), [2] where this court stated: "This record undoubtedly supports the finding of the trial judge that Cotton's statement to Robinson was free and voluntary.