appearance of fairness doctrine in Washington

2024“Without evidence of actual or potential bias, an appearance of fairness claim cannot succeed and is without merit.” State v. Post, 118 Wn.2d 596, 619 , 826 P.2d 172 , 837 P.2d 599 (1992).

2021And absent “evidence of actual or potential bias, an appearance of fairness claim cannot succeed and is without merit.” State v. Post, 118 Wn.2d 596, 619 , 826 P.2d 172 (1992); see also Petersen, 180 Wn.2d at 786-87 (declining to apply the doctrine where the petitioner failed to present material evidence suggesting impropriety).

2017App. at 329 . ¶60 “Under the appearance of fairness doctrine, proceedings before a quasi-judicial tribunal are valid only if a reasonably prudent and disinterested observer would conclude that all parties obtained a fair, impartial, and neutral hearing.” Johnston, 99 Wn.2d at 478 .

2016“Under the appearance of fairness doctrine, proceedings before a quasi-judicial tribunal are valid only if a reasonably prudent and disinterested observer would conclude that all parties obtained a fair, impartial, and neutral hearing.” Johnston, 99 Wn.2d at 478 .

2026“Due process, the appearance of fairness doctrine and Canon [2.11] of the Code of Judicial Conduct . . . require a judge to disqualify himself if he is biased against a party or his impartiality may reasonably be questioned.” State v. Dominguez, 81 Wn.

2025“Due process, the appearance of fairness doctrine and Canon [2.11] of the Code of Judicial Conduct . . . require a judge to disqualify himself if he is biased against a party or his impartiality may reasonably be questioned.” State v. Dominguez, 81 Wn.

2004In addition, to the extent the challenge suggests an appearance of fairness violation, Swift v. Island County, 87 Wn.2d 348, 361 , 552 P.2d 175 (1976), Friends’ argument comes too late.

2004In addition, to the extent the challenge suggests an appearance of fairness violation, Swift v. Island County, 87 Wn.2d 348, 361 , 552 P.2d 175 (1976), Friends’ argument comes too late.

2008Ass’n v. City of Tacoma, 84 Wn.2d 416, 420 , 526 P.2d 897 (1974).

2008Ass’n v. City of Tacoma, 84 Wn.2d 416, 420 , 526 P.2d 897 (1974).

1999See Harris v. Hornbaker, 98 Wn.2d 650, 659-60 , 658 P.2d 1219 (1983) (the Legislature’s determination of where to place a road was a distinctly legislative decision and therefore the appearance of fairness doctrine did not apply).

1999See Harris v. Hornbaker, 98 Wn.2d 650, 659-60 , 658 P.2d 1219 (1983) (the Legislature’s determination of where to place a road was a distinctly legislative decision and therefore the appearance of fairness doctrine did not apply).

2024“Without evidence of actual or potential bias, an appearance of fairness claim cannot succeed and is without merit.” State v. Post, 118 Wn.2d 596, 619 , 826 P.2d 172 , 837 P.2d 599 (1992).

2020Beginning with State v. Post, 118 Wn.2d 596 , 826 P.2d 172 , 837 P.2d 599 (1992), the Washington Supreme Court has characterized a judge’s failure to recuse himself or herself when required to do so by the judicial canons as a violation of the appearance of fairness doctrine.

2014See State v. Finch, 137 Wn.2d 792, 809-10 , 975 P.2d 967 (1999); Carrick, 125 Wn.2d at 140-43 . 18               In re Petersen, No. 88513-3 necessary for an appearance of fairness violation and so her charge against Commissioner Valente must fail.

2014See State v. Finch, 137 Wn.2d 792, 809-10 , 975 P.2d 967 (1999); Carrick, 125 Wn.2d at 140-43 . 18 In re Petersen, No. 88513-3 necessary for an appearance of fairness violation and so her charge against Commissioner Valente must fail.

2025“Under the appearance of fairness doctrine, a judicial proceeding is valid only if a reasonably prudent, disinterested observer would conclude that the parties received a fair, impartial and neutral hearing.” State v. Gamble, 168 Wn.2d 161, 187 , 225 P.3d 973 (2010).

2025“Under the appearance of fairness doctrine, a judicial proceeding is valid only if a reasonably prudent, disinterested observer would conclude that the parties received a fair, impartial and neutral hearing.” State v. Gamble, 168 Wn.2d 161, 187 , 225 P.3d 973 (2010).

2025“Under the appearance of fairness doctrine, a judicial proceeding is valid only if a reasonably prudent, disinterested observer would conclude that the parties received a fair, impartial and neutral hearing.” State v. Gamble, 168 Wn.2d 161, 187 , 225 P.3d 973 (2010).

2025“Under the appearance of fairness doctrine, a judicial proceeding is valid only if a reasonably prudent, disinterested observer would conclude that the parties received a fair, impartial and neutral hearing.” State v. Gamble, 168 Wn.2d 161, 187 , 225 P.3d 973 (2010).

2026Under the appearance of fairness doctrine, “a judicial proceeding is valid if a reasonably prudent, disinterested observer would conclude that the parties received a fair, impartial, and neutral hearing.” State v. Solis-Diaz, 187 Wn.2d 535, 540 , 387 P.3d 703 (2017).

2026Under the appearance of fairness doctrine, a judicial proceeding is valid only if “a reasonably prudent, disinterested observer would conclude that the parties received a fair, impartial, and neutral hearing.” Solis-Diaz, 187 Wn.2d at 540 .

2025A proceeding satisfies the appearance of fairness doctrine “only if a reasonably prudent and disinterested person would conclude that all parties obtained a fair, impartial, and neutral hearing.” Tatham v. Rogers, 170 Wn.

2024A. LEGAL PRINCIPLES The appearance of fairness doctrine seeks to prevent any issues of “a biased or potentially interested judge.” Tatham v. Rogers, 170 Wn.

2024App. 325 , 328- 29, 914 P.2d 141 (1996) (citing State v. Post, 118 Wn.2d 596 , 618-19 & n.9, 826 P.2d 172 (1992); State v. Carter, 77 Wn.

2018We disagree. 29 No. 49794-8-II “The appearance of fairness doctrine seeks to prevent ‘the evil of a biased or potentially interested judge.’” State v. Carter, 77 Wn.

1999See Zehring v. City of Bellevue, 103 Wn.2d 588, 591 , 694 P.2d 638 (1985) (the appearance of fairness doctrine has never been applied to an administrative action except where a hearing was required by statute); Polygon Corp. v. City of Seattle, 90 Wn.2d 59, 67-68 , 578 P.2d 1309 (1978) (same).

1999See Zehring v. City of Bellevue, 103 Wn.2d 588, 591 , 694 P.2d 638 (1985) (the appearance of fairness doctrine has never been applied to an administrative action except where a hearing was required by statute); Polygon Corp. v. City of Seattle, 90 Wn.2d 59, 67-68 , 578 P.2d 1309 (1978) (same).

2006Employment Relations Comm’n, 97 Wn.2d 481, 488 , 646 P.2d 129 (1982). ¶101 Under the appearance of fairness doctrine, it is not necessary to show that a decision-maker’s bias actually affected the outcome, only that it could have.

2006Employment Relations Comm’n, 97 Wn.2d 481, 488 , 646 P.2d 129 (1982). ¶101 Under the appearance of fairness doctrine, it is not necessary to show that a decision-maker’s bias actually affected the outcome, only that it could have.

2014See State v. Finch, 137 Wn.2d 792, 809-10 , 975 P.2d 967 (1999); Carrick, 125 Wn.2d at 140-43 . 18               In re Petersen, No. 88513-3 necessary for an appearance of fairness violation and so her charge against Commissioner Valente must fail.

2014See State v. Finch, 137 Wn.2d 792, 809-10 , 975 P.2d 967 (1999); Carrick, 125 Wn.2d at 140-43 . 18 In re Petersen, No. 88513-3 necessary for an appearance of fairness violation and so her charge against Commissioner Valente must fail.

2025Because the trial court is presumed to perform its functions regularly and properly without bias or prejudice, Wolfkill Feed & Fertilizer Corp. v. Martin, 103 Wn.

2009Wolfkill, 103 Wash.App. at 841 , 14 P.3d 877 (citing Kay Corp. v. Anderson, 72 Wash.2d 879, 885 , 436 P.2d 459 (1967)). ¶ 30 The appearance of fairness doctrine seeks to insure public confidence by preventing a biased or potentially interested judge from ruling on a case.

2019We disagree. “‘Under the appearance of fairness doctrine, a judicial proceeding is valid only if a reasonably prudent, disinterested observer would conclude that the parties received a fair, impartial, and neutral hearing.’” State v. Bilal, 77 Wn.

2018The trial judge’s comment does not evidence any bias “Under the appearance of fairness doctrine, a judicial proceeding is valid only if a reasonably prudent, disinterested observer would conclude that the parties received a fair, impartial, and neutral hearing.” State v. Gamble, 168 Wn.2d 161, 187 , 225 P.3d 973 (2010) (citing State v. Bilal, 77 Wn.

2012The appearance of fairness doctrine was first enunciated in Smith v. Skagit County, 75 Wn.2d 715 , 453 P.2d 832 (1969).

2012The appearance of fairness doctrine was first enunciated in Smith v. Skagit County, 75 Wn.2d 715 , 453 P.2d 832 (1969).

2025Morgensen, 148 Wn.

2024State v. Morgensen, 148 Wn.

2017After reviewing the record, we disagree. ¶20 “Under the appearance of fairness doctrine, a judicial proceeding is valid only if a reasonably prudent, disinterested observer would conclude that the parties received a fair, impartial, and neutral hearing.” State v. Gamble, 168 Wn.2d 161, 187 , 225 P.3d 973 (2010). “ ‘The law goes farther than requiring an impartial judge; it also requires that the judge appear to be impartial.’ ” Gamble, 168 Wn.2d at 187 (quoting State v. Madry, 8 Wn.

1997App. 61, 68-69 , 504 P.2d 1156 (1972), the Washington case to which May cites, was reformulated in State v. Post, 118 Wn.2d 596, 618-19 , 826 P.2d 172 , 837 P.2d 599 (1992), which now requires evidence of a judge’s actual or potential bias to assert a claim under the appearance of fairness doctrine.

2022The case she relies on, In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against King, 168 Wn.2d 888, 899 , 232 P.3d 1095 (2010), states, “[q]uestions as to whether undisputed facts violate due process or the appearance of fairness doctrine are legal and reviewed de novo.” Here, however, Bell is appealing the denial of her motion for a new trial judge, where Judge Schwartz made a decision regarding whether he was required to recuse himself.

2014The DeCourseys assert that we review the recusal issue de novo, citing In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against King, 168 Wn.2d 888, 899 , 232 P.3d 1095 (2010) ("Questions as to whether undisputed facts violate due process or the appearance of fairness doctrine are legal and reviewed de novo.").