(a) The supreme court may on its own motion and shall upon petition of a judge who has
been adversely affected by a recommendation of the commission review the record of
the commission’s proceedings on the law and on the facts and may, for the purposes
of the review, permit the introduction of additional evidence and shall have the power
to subpoena witnesses and administer oaths. The supreme court may, upon review of
a recommendation of censure, suspension, immediate temporary suspension, reprimand,
retirement, or removal, affirm, modify, or reject the recommendation of the commission.
(b) A petition to the supreme court to modify or reject the recommendation of the commission
for reprimand, censure, suspension, immediate temporary suspension, removal, or retirement
of a judge shall be filed with the chief justice of the supreme court and the chairperson
of the commission within twenty (20) days after the filing of a certified copy of
the recommendation of the commission. The petition shall be verified, shall specify
the grounds relied upon, and shall be accompanied by a brief. Within twenty (20) days
of the filing of the petition, the commission may file a respondent’s brief with the
chief justice of the supreme court and the petitioner within ten (10) days after service
of respondent’s brief, the petitioner may file a reply brief, of which one copy shall
be served on the commission. Petitions and briefs filed pursuant to this section shall
be public documents.
(c) The supreme court may hold such hearings as it deems necessary when reviewing recommendations
of the commission, and where the review is conducted pursuant to a petition therefor,
its decision shall be rendered not later than ninety (90) days after the filing of
that petition. Hearings before the supreme court pursuant to this section shall be
open to the public, and the court’s decision shall be public and shall be published
in the same manner as other decisions of the supreme court.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
7
cases, 1992–2007 · leading case:
In Re Lallo, 768 A.2d 921 (R.I. 2001).
In Re Lallo, 768 A.2d 921 (R.I. 2001).
· cites it 3× “Section 8-16-6(a) specifically provides that “[t]he supreme court may, upon review of a recommendation of censure, suspension, immediate temporary suspension, reprimand, retirement, or removal, affirm, modify, or reject the recommendation of the commission.”
Matter of Almeida, 611 A.2d 1375 (R.I. 1992).
· cites it 3× “The petitioner also asserts that this court is without authority to terminate his statutorily created pension because §§ 8-16-6 and 8-16-8 do not cloak this court with the authority to affirm, modify, or reject the commission's recommendation to terminate petitioner's…”
In Re Arrigan, 678 A.2d 446 (R.I. 1996).
· cites it 3× “Therefore, this Court, having reviewed the record of the commission’s proceedings on the law and the facts, pursuant to G.L.1956 § 8-16-6, modifies the recommendations oí the commission and directs that the petitioner be publicly censured.”
In Re Comm'n on Jud. Tenure & Discipline, 916 A.2d 746 (R.I. 2007).
“Under § 8-16-6, petitioner filed a petition to reject the recommendation of the commission, arguing that his conduct did not rise to the level of judicial misconduct.”
In Re O'Brien, 650 A.2d 134 (R.I. 1994).
· cites it 2× “1956 (1985 Reenactment) § 8-16-6(b), as amended by P.L.1987, ch. 492, § 1, respondent was entitled to file a petition to modify or reject the commission’s recommen- - dation within twenty days of the date of said report.”
In re the Comm'n on Jud. Tenure & Discipline Proceedings Against Almeida, 611 A.2d 1375 (R.I. 1992).
· cites it 3× “The petitioner also asserts that this court is without authority to terminate his statutorily created pension because §§ 8-16-6 and 8-16-8 do not cloak this court with the authority to affirm, modify, or reject the commission’s recommendation to terminate petitioner’s…”
Operation Clean Gov't v. Rhode Island Comm'n on Jud. Tenure & Discipline, 741 A.2d 257 (R.I. 1999).
“See § 8-16-6. This summary of the statute reveals that the Legislature has carefully crafted a method of investigating and adjudicating complaints against members of the judiciary by a body specifically charged with the responsibility of such investigation and adjudication.”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 8-16-6(a) — 3 cases
In Re Lallo, 768 A.2d 921 (R.I. 2001).
“Section 8-16-6(a) specifically provides that “[t]he supreme court may, upon review of a recommendation of censure, suspension, immediate temporary suspension, reprimand, retirement, or removal, affirm, modify, or reject the recommendation of the commission.”
Matter of Almeida, 611 A.2d 1375 (R.I. 1992).
“The petitioner also asserts that this court is without authority to terminate his statutorily created pension because §§ 8-16-6 and 8-16-8 do not cloak this court with the authority to affirm, modify, or reject the commission's recommendation to terminate petitioner's…”
In re the Comm'n on Jud. Tenure & Discipline Proceedings Against Almeida, 611 A.2d 1375 (R.I. 1992).
“The petitioner also asserts that this court is without authority to terminate his statutorily created pension because §§ 8-16-6 and 8-16-8 do not cloak this court with the authority to affirm, modify, or reject the commission’s recommendation to terminate petitioner’s…”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 8-16-6(b) — 2 cases
In Re Arrigan, 678 A.2d 446 (R.I. 1996).
“Therefore, this Court, having reviewed the record of the commission’s proceedings on the law and the facts, pursuant to G.L.1956 § 8-16-6, modifies the recommendations oí the commission and directs that the petitioner be publicly censured.”
In Re O'Brien, 650 A.2d 134 (R.I. 1994).
“1956 (1985 Reenactment) § 8-16-6(b), as amended by P.L.1987, ch. 492, § 1, respondent was entitled to file a petition to modify or reject the commission’s recommen- - dation within twenty days of the date of said report.”
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.