(a) The Commission, upon a determination that any judge has engaged in conduct that violates the North Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct as adopted by the Supreme Court but that is not of such a nature as would warrant a recommendation of public reprimand, censure, suspension, or removal, may issue to the judge a private letter of caution.
(b) Upon recommendation of the Commission, the Supreme Court may issue a public reprimand, censure, suspend, or remove any judge for willful misconduct in office, willful and persistent failure to perform the judge's duties, habitual intemperance, conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute. A judge who is suspended for any of the foregoing reasons shall receive no compensation during the period of that suspension. A judge who is removed for any of the foregoing reasons shall receive no retirement compensation and is disqualified from holding further judicial office.
(c) Upon recommendation of the Commission, the Supreme Court may suspend, for a period of time the Supreme Court deems necessary, any judge for temporary physical or mental incapacity interfering with the performance of the judge's duties, and may remove any judge for physical or mental incapacity interfering with the performance of the judge's duties which is, or is likely to become, permanent. A judge who is suspended for temporary incapacity shall continue to receive compensation during the period of the suspension. A judge removed for mental or physical incapacity is entitled to retirement compensation if the judge has accumulated the years of creditable service required for incapacity or disability retirement under any provision of State law, but he shall not sit as an emergency justice or judge. (1971, c. 590, s. 1; 1979, c. 486, s. 2; 2006-187, s. 11; 2013-404, s. 2.)
Notes of Decisions
In Re Inquiry Concerning a Judge No. 53 Peoples, 250 S.E.2d 890 (N.C. 1978).
· cites it 23× “In support of this contention, Respondent points to the language of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-376 (Cum. Supp. 1977), which reads in pertinent part as follows: “Upon recommendation of the Commission, the Supreme Court may censure or remove any justice or judge for wilful misconduct in…”
In Re Inquiry Concerning Judge Hardy, 240 S.E.2d 367 (N.C. 1978).
· cites it 24× “We therefore put these matters aside and go directly to the questions remaining: Is the Supreme Court authorized and empowered to order the removal of a judge when the Judicial Standards Commission has only recommended that the judge be censured? If so, should the Respondent…”
In Re Badgett, 657 S.E.2d 346 (N.C. 2008).
· cites it 10× “We also agree with the Commission’s conclusions that respondent’s actions violated Canons 1, 2A, 2B, 3A(2), 3A(3), 3A(4), and 3D of the North Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct and constitute conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office…”
In Re Inquiry Concerning a Judge, No. 08-174 Hartsfield, 722 S.E.2d 496 (N.C. 2012).
· cites it 11× “Furthermore, we agree with the Commission’s conclusions that respondent’s conduct violates Canons 1, 2A, 3A(1), 3A(4), and 5F of the North Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct, and amounts to willful misconduct in office and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice…”
In Re Inquiry Concerning a Judge, No. 14-126B MacK, 794 S.E.2d 266 (N.C. 2016).
· cites it 11× “reed to accept a recommendation of public reprimand from the Commission and acknowledges that the conduct set out in the Stipulations establishes by clear and convincing evidence that this conduct is in violation of the North Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct and is prejudicial…”
In Re Inquiry Concerning 17-143 Apr. M. Smith, 827 S.E.2d 516 (N.C. 2019).
· cites it 18× “In reflecting on her conduct, Respondent also agrees that based on the totality of the circumstances, she violated the foregoing provisions of the North Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct and N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-376. (Brackets in original) (Citations to pages of the Stipulation…”
In Re Inquiry Concerning a Judge, Royster, 648 S.E.2d 837 (N.C. 2007).
· cites it 12× “The complaint to the Commission further alleged that respondent’s actions “constitute conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute, in violation of N.C.G.S. § 7A-376, and are in violation of Canons 1, 2A, and 3A(4) of the…”
In Re Daisy, 614 S.E.2d 529 (N.C. 2005).
· cites it 12× “The actions of the respondent constitute conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute, in violation of N.C.G.S. § 7A-376, and are in violation of Canons 1, 2A and 3A(3) of the North Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct and the…”
In re Inquiry Concerning a Judge, Nos. 09-013, 09-018 & 09-029 Belk, 691 S.E.2d 685 (N.C. 2010).
· cites it 18× “§ 7A-376(b). Respondent violated Canons 1, 2A, and 5C(2) by failing to resign from the Sonic Board and by intentionally misrepresenting the reasons for his continued membership on the board during the Commission’s investigation.”
In Re Spivey, 480 S.E.2d 693 (N.C. 1997).
· cites it 6× “Relying on several cases involving this Court’s censure or removal of judges under N.C.G.S. § 7A-376, Spivey argues that a district attorney cannot be removed from office for directing racially abusive epithets against a member of the public while not acting in his official…”
In Re Inquiry Concerning a Judge, No. 253 Stephenson, 552 S.E.2d 137 (N.C. 2001).
· cites it 6× “In reviewing the Commission’s recommendations pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-376, this Court acts as a court of original jurisdiction, rather than in its usual capacity as an appellate court.”
In Re Shipley, 811 S.E.2d 556 (N.C. 2018).
· cites it 13× “Upon the agreement of Respondent and the Commission's independent review of the Stipulation and the record, the Commission further concludes that Respondent's violations of Canon 1 and Canon 2A of the Code of Judicial Conduct amount to conduct prejudicial to the administration…”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-376(a) — 4 cases
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-376(b) — 32 cases
In Re Inquiry Concerning a Judge, No. 14-126B MacK, 794 S.E.2d 266 (N.C. 2016).
“reed to accept a recommendation of public reprimand from the Commission and acknowledges that the conduct set out in the Stipulations establishes by clear and convincing evidence that this conduct is in violation of the North Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct and is prejudicial…”
In Re Shipley, 811 S.E.2d 556 (N.C. 2018).
“Upon the agreement of Respondent and the Commission's independent review of the Stipulation and the record, the Commission further concludes that Respondent's violations of Canon 1 and Canon 2A of the Code of Judicial Conduct amount to conduct prejudicial to the administration…”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-376(c) — 1 case
In Re Inquiry Concerning 17-143 Apr. M. Smith, 827 S.E.2d 516 (N.C. 2019).
“In reflecting on her conduct, Respondent also agrees that based on the totality of the circumstances, she violated the foregoing provisions of the North Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct and N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-376. (Brackets in original) (Citations to pages of the Stipulation…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.