Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 Maine opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2018 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Maine courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Aubutgreen2 sentences2013A judge should not recuse himself or herself "merely because a completely unfounded claim of prejudice [is] lodged against him by a defendant." State v. Aubut, 261 A.2d 48, 50 (Me. 1970). 2010A judge should not recuse himself or herself “merely because a completely unfounded claim of prejudice [is] lodged against him by a defendant.” State v. Aubut, 261 A.2d 48, 50 (Me.1970). | 3 | 4 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maine. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Murphy
green
2 sentences2018Second, Judge Nadeau recognized his potential disqualification sua sponte in a scheduling order that he signed almost two months before Gavel first asked him to recuse. [¶ 17] This is not a case where recusal is at issue “merely because a completely unfounded claim of prejudice is lodged against [a judge].” Murphy, 2010 ME 140, ¶ 18 , 10 A.3d 697 (alteration and quotation marks omitted). 2018Second, Judge Nadeau recognized his potential disqualification sua sponte in a scheduling order that he signed almost two months before Gavel first asked him to recuse. [¶ 17] This is not a case where recusal is at issue “merely because a completely unfounded claim of prejudice is lodged against [a judge].” Murphy, 2010 ME 140, ¶ 18 , 10 A.3d 697 (alteration and quotation marks omitted). | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Madsen v. Prudential Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n
green
1 sentence2000The court in Madsen , in vacating a recusal order entered after trial but before the judge issued findings of fact, stated that when the recusal is made at an advanced stage of the litigation process, “the basis for disqualification should be thoroughly examined.” Id. at 544 n. 5. [¶ 14] A judge should not recuse himself or herself “merely because a completely unfounded claim of prejudice [is] lodged against him by a defendant.” State v. Aubut, 261 A.2d 48, 50 (Me.1970). | 1 | 2000–2000 |